DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the communication filed on January 17, 2025. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 18, and 19 are independent claims.
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
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 1-19 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.
As to independent claims 1, 18, and 19, the claims recite “identifying the patient to whom medicine is provided” and “identifying a specialty of the medicine”. The plain language reading of the “the patient to whom medicine is provided” would imply medication rather than a medical professional whereas the “specialty of the medicine” would imply a medical professional rather than medication. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the term “medicine” is to refer to medication or the general practice of medicine. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “medicine” includes “something that affects well-being”, “the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease”, or “the branch of medicine concerned with nonsurgical treatment of disease” (see Merriam Webster Dictionary). For the purposes of compact prosecution and in a manner consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the term “medicine” with be interpreted as medical care. Accordingly, where the prior art teaches creating a group based on at least one of: (i) information identifying the patient for whom medical care is provide and (ii) second information identifying a specialty of the medical care (i.e., specialist in a particular field of medicine), then it meets the claimed invention.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 recite a system of providing patient data to the patient’s healthcare team, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 18 recites a device for providing patient data to the patient’s healthcare team, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable memory performing instructions for providing patient data to the patient’s healthcare team, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-19, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 18, and 19 (claim 1 being representative)
an information processing device; and a plurality of terminals operated by the health professionals, wherein the information processing device is configured to execute operations, the operations including: receiving, from one of the terminals, a request of creating a group based on at least one of: (i) first information identifying the patient to whom medicine is provided and (ii) second information identifying a specialty of the medicine, searching for a health professional satisfying the request among the health professionals, creating, according to a result of the searching, a group of health professionals, the group including a health professional who operated, for the request, the one terminal from which the request is sent and at least one health professional satisfying the request, wherein the health professional satisfying the request is at least one of a health professional in charge of the patient identified by the first information and a health professional having the specialty identified by the second information, providing template data corresponding to the created group, and transmitting information about the patient inputted to an input item of the template data via a first terminal, among the terminals, operated by any one of the health professionals included in the group, to at least one second terminal, among the terminals, operated by another of the health professionals included in the group.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to retrieve and manage data in the manner described in the abstract idea. For example, the claims describe a person, such as a hospitalist, to lead and coordinate a medical care team for a patient. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“information processing device”, “terminals”, “first/second terminal”, "a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a computer” -- all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“information processing device”, “terminals”, “first/second terminal”, "a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a computer”—see Specification Fig. 11, [0010], [0030], [0042], [0057], [0058] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2 merely recites using a template based on a health professional’s specialty, claims 5-8, 10 merely recite identifying professionals based on the patient information and/or specialty information, claim 9 merely recites changing/updating the team based on the specialty, claim 11 recites storing identifying data of the healthcare professional and patient, claim 12 merely recites generating a report, claim 13 merely recites merely recites different types of data to be shared, claim 14 merely recites further making a call between the users, claims 15-17 merely recite the type of specialty/health professional, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claims 3, 4, and 7 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite the template being created on a screen through a search, which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating that “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technology environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, storing the data in a database is an additional element that is considered to “apply it” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rybkin (USPPN: 2016/0004836; hereinafter Rybkin).
As to claim 1, Rybkin teaches An information system configured to exchange information about a patient among a plurality of health professionals (e.g., see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1 teaching a method/system for patient data collaboration amongst health care providers), the information system comprising:
an information processing device (e.g., see Fig. 1); and
a plurality of terminals operated by the health professionals, wherein the information processing device is configured to execute operations (e.g., see Fig. 1), the operations including:
receiving, from one of the terminals, a request of creating a group based on at least one of: (i) first information identifying the patient to whom medicine is provided and (ii) second information identifying a specialty of the medicine (See 112 rejection above. e.g., see [0038], [0041], [0042], [0059], [0064] wherein a provider/administrator can create a care team of health care professionals associated with a patient for whom medical care is to be provided, wherein the health care professional can further be identified by their specialty),
searching for a health professional satisfying the request among the health professionals, creating, according to a result of the searching, a group of health professionals, the group including a health professional who operated, for the request, the one terminal from which the request is sent and at least one health professional satisfying the request, wherein the health professional satisfying the request is at least one of a health professional in charge of the patient identified by the first information and a health professional having the specialty identified by the second information (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0033], [0064]-[0066] wherein health providers can be searched based on their specialties to be added to a team for a particular patient),
providing template data corresponding to the created group (e.g., see [0057], [0065], [0066] wherein a template is provided to the care team), and
transmitting information about the patient inputted to an input item of the template data via a first terminal, among the terminals, operated by any one of the health professionals included in the group, to at least one second terminal, among the terminals, operated by another of the health professionals included in the group (e.g., see Fig. 13, [0057], [0058], [0061], [0065], [0066] wherein patient data is provided to relevant health care professionals of the patient’s care team, wherein each health care professional is associated with a handheld device).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the group includes the health professional having the specialty identified by the second information, and the template data includes template data corresponding to the specialty (e.g., see [0057], [0065], [0066] wherein the medical professionals in the care team can be search based on their specialty and those professionals are provided a template specific to their specialty).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the health professional satisfying the request includes the health professional in charge of the patient identified by the first information and the health professional having the specialty identified by the second information (e.g., see Figs. 2, 3, [0025], [0030], [0064] wherein the care team is made up of professionals associated with the patient, including their provider, and those of a particular specialty).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the request is based on the first information and the second information (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0025], [0030], [0064] wherein the care team is made up of professionals associated with the particular patient and can further be of a particular specialty).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the information processing device is configured to store a database storing at least one of the first information and the second information in association with identification information identifying one of the health professionals, and the searching includes searching for the health professional satisfying the request from the database (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0025], [0030], [0064] teaching a database for the patient and doctor information and a patient-team association storage, wherein the doctor’s can be configured based on their specialties).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the group includes a plurality of the health professionals in charge of the patient identified by the first information and/or a plurality of the health professionals having the specialty identified by the second information (e.g., see [0064], [0065] teaching patient care teams are configured based on provider specialties).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the information processing device is configured to execute, for the patient, the receiving, the searching, and the creating multiple times with changing the specialty to create a plurality of the groups for the patient (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0045], [0064] teaching creating new teams and sub-teams numerous times).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the operations further comprise creating a second group of the health professionals, the group including all health professionals included in any one of the plurality of the groups (e.g., see [0038], [0064]-[0065], [0067] wherein providers can be included in multiple teams).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the operations further comprise storing identification information identifying one of the health professionals and at least one of identification information identifying the patient and identification information identifying the specialty (e.g., see Figs. 2, 3, [0039], [0063] wherein providers are associated with a patient, team, and specialty).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the operations further comprise creating a report including the information about the patient transmitted from the first terminal to the second terminal (e.g., see [0058], [0065], [0068] wherein the patient data can be shared between different providers).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the information about the patient transmitted from the first terminal to the second terminal is at least one of text data, image data, and movie data (e.g., see Fig. 6, [0066], [0079] wherein the shared patient data can include documents, photographs, images, multimedia content, video/voice recordings, etc.).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the operations further comprise executing, according to a call request transmitted from the first terminal, a voice call or a video call between the first terminal and any one of the second terminal (e.g., see [0079] wherein the system supports voice communication between parties).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the specialty is a specialty in nursing.
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the specialty indicates a type of nursing, and the creating includes creating the group for the type indicated by the specialty (e.g., see [0017] wherein the system is provided among health care providers, including nurses).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the plurality of health professionals included in the group belong to medical institutions different from one another (e.g., see [0017], [0063] wherein the system supports communication between personnel from multiple facilities).
As to claim 18, the claim is directed to the device implemented on the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 19, the claim is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable medium implemented on the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rybkin, as applied above, and in further view of Colley et al. (USPPN: 2021/0090694; hereinafter Colley).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rybkin teaches a creation screen in which users can create a service comprises of various templates (e.g., see Fig. 18, [0069]), wherein the templates can be specific to medical specialties and Rybkin further goes on to state the templates may be further edited by the user. However, Rybkin fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprises: providing, to any one of terminal among the first and second terminals, a creation screen to create the template data; creating the template data according to input received from the one terminal to which the creation screen is provided; and storing the created template data in association with the group.
However, in the same field of endeavor of managing patient healthcare, Colley teaches providing, to any one of terminal among the first and second terminals, a creation screen to create the template data (e.g., see Figs. 112-114, [1330] teaching a template module to create templates); creating the template data according to input received from the one terminal to which the creation screen is provided (e.g., see Figs. 112-114, [1330], [01334] wherein a user can create a template via input on the interface); and storing the created template data in association with the group (e.g., see Figs. 112-114, [1331], [1333] wherein a user can save and publish the template to be used for particular medical group).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rybkin in view of Colley before its effective date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily generate data entry based on a data template (e.g., see [0307] of Colley).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Rybkin further teaches wherein the information processing device is configured to store a database storing a plurality of template data in association with the group (e.g., see Fig. 3 teaching a database), and the operations further comprises:
receiving, from the one terminal to which the creation screen is provided, input of a search condition regarding the template data to be created (e.g., see Fig. 18, [0069] wherein template is retrieve based on user input); and
searching for template data satisfying the search condition in the database (e.g., see Fig. 18, [0069] wherein a user can search for a particular template), and
displaying the template data satisfying the search condition in a selectable form (e.g., see Fig. 18, [0068], [0069] wherein the selected template is provided).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681