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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 02/10/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1 and 11. The objection of claim 10 and the rejection of claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 20 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.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 5, 11 – 13, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohada et al (US 2023/0035775; hereinafter Kohada).
Regarding claim 1, Kohada discloses a treatment application management system configured to perform a process relating to initiation of use of a treatment application that is installed and used in a patient terminal (fig. 1; abstract), comprising:
the treatment application (31, fig. 1) installed in the patient terminal (200, fig. 1; paragraphs [0008], [0072]; Kohada discloses a reception unit configured to receive request information for requesting an activation code for validating the therapeutic application which is downloaded by the patient using the terminal); and
a management server (100, fig. 2) configured to issue an ID required for the initiation of use of the treatment application (paragraphs [0018], [0068], [0082]; Kohada discloses that the acquisition unit 131 acquires information indicating a therapeutic application, a patient ID for identifying a patient for which the therapeutic application is to be prescribed), wherein the management server includes a medical institution ID issuing unit configured to issue a medical institution ID for identifying a medical institution that prescribes the treatment application (paragraphs [], [0082]; Kohada discloses that Acquisition by the acquisition unit 131 may be performed by receiving information which is transmitted from the medical worker terminal 500 by the communication unit 110 or by acquiring information which is directly input to the input unit 120 by a medical worker); and
the treatment application includes,
a medical institution ID acquisition unit configured to acquire the medical institution ID issued by the medical institution ID issuing unit (paragraphs [0137]; Kohada discloses that The device which can ascertain the actual data mentioned herein is a server device that stores information such as examination information in a medical institution in which the patient is actually treated and is a server device of a medical institution cooperating with the management server 100) through decoding of code information in which the medical institution ID is recorded (paragraph [0162]; Kohada discloses that when a limitation code is received from the management server 100, the communication unit 210 delivers the limitation code to the control unit 230. When the limitation code is delivered, the application limiting unit 232 of the control unit 230 extracts an application ID included in the limitation code. Then, the application limiting unit 232 limits the therapeutic application corresponding to the extracted application ID (Step S1009)), and
an application setting unit configured to set the medical institution ID acquired by the medical institution ID acquisition unit as information for making the treatment application available for use (paragraph [0020]; Kohada discloses that a management program that causes a computer to perform: an acquisition function of acquiring an application ID indicating a therapeutic application which is prescribed for a patient by a medical worker, a patient ID for identifying a patient for whom the therapeutic application is to be prescribed).
Regarding claim 2, Kohada discloses the treatment application management system according to claim 1,
wherein the treatment application further includes a log-in information registration request unit configured to make a log-in information registration request, which is executable due to setting of the medical institution ID by the application setting unit, to the management server (paragraphs [0005], [0008]), and
the management server further includes a log-in information registration unit configured to register log-in information that is used when a patient who uses the treatment application logs in the treatment application in response to the log-in information registration request transmitted from the treatment application (paragraph [0076]; Kohada discloses that the communication unit 110 receives request information for requesting an activation code from the user terminal 200 and delivers the received request information to the control unit 130).
Regarding claim 3, Kohada discloses the treatment application management system according to claim 2,
wherein the management server includes, a first management server including the medical institution ID issuing unit (135, fig. 2; paragraphs [0067], [0081], [0086]), and
a second management server including the log-in information registration unit (132. fig. 2; paragraphs [0067], [0081], [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Kohada discloses the treatment application management system according to claim 1,
wherein the treatment application further includes a patient information transmitting unit configured to receive an input of patient initial information to be set when initiating a treatment using the treatment application after the medical institution ID is set by the application setting unit, and to transmit the input patient initial information to the management server (paragraphs [0071 - 0072]; Kohada discloses that in the therapeutic application management system 1 according to this example, a medical worker 20 inputs a use deadline of a therapeutic application to the medical worker terminal 500. The input use deadline is transmitted as use deadline information 51 to the management server 100, and the management server 100 registers and manages the use deadline for each patient and for each therapeutic application. The use deadline information 51 may be set in advance in the management server 100 for each therapeutic application ), and
the management server further includes a patient information management unit configured to manage the patient initial information transmitted from the treatment application in a state viewable from a medical institution terminal that is used in the medical institution (paragraphs [0071 - 0072]; Kohada discloses that the management server 100 collects, stores, and manages various types of data which are stored by allowing the patient to use the therapeutic application. When the user terminal 200 executes the therapeutic application, treatment information which is provided from the management server 100 or the operation server 600 can be displayed as information on treatment of the patient of the user terminal 200. When the use deadline of the therapeutic application expires, limitation information 11 is transmitted to the user terminal 200 to limit use of the therapeutic application.).
Regarding claim 5, Kohada discloses the treatment application management system according to claim 2,
wherein the treatment application further includes a patient information transmitting unit configured to receive an input of patient initial information to be set when initiating a treatment using the treatment application after the log-in information is registered by the log-in information registration unit, and to transmit the input patient initial information to the management server (paragraphs [0071 – 0072]), and
the management server further includes a patient information management unit configured to manage the patient initial information transmitted from the treatment application in a state viewable from a medical institution terminal that is used in the medical institution (paragraphs [0071 – 0072]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohada et al (US 2023/0035775; hereinafter Kohada) in view of KUMANO et al (US 2023/0317245; hereinafter KUMANO).
Regarding claim 6, Kohada discloses all the limitations in claim 4, but fails to specifically disclose that the patient information management unit manages the patient initial information transmitted from the treatment application in a state editable from the medical institution terminal.
Kumano, in an analogous art, discloses that the patient information management unit manages the patient initial information transmitted from the treatment application in a state editable from the medical institution terminal (paragraph [0127]; KUMANO discloses that the homework to be selected by the medical treatment module part 10C is stored in a storage device (database) not shown in FIG. 2, and it is possible to refer the homework linked to each medical treatment module. Such a homework is edited predetermined contents which can be expected to improve the symptoms when being carried out by the patient and patient's independence can be improved).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Kohada by showing that the patient information management unit manages the patient initial information transmitted from the treatment application in a state editable from the medical institution terminal as evidenced by KUMANO for the purpose of treating patients living in depopulated or remote areas where it is difficult to access to medical facilities in a user friendly manner.
Regarding claims 9 - 10, Kohada and Kumano disclose the treatment application management system according to claim 1, wherein the medical institution ID issuing unit issues a plurality of medical institution IDs corresponding to a plurality of medical institutions regardless of whether or not the medical institutions prescribe the treatment application (KUMANO: paragraph [0062]; KUMANO discloses that Although not shown in FIG. 1, a plurality of patient-side information processing terminals 3 and a plurality of medical facility-side information processing terminals 4 can also be connected to the network 10.). Same motivation as in claim 6.
Claims 7 – 8, and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohada et al (US 2023/0035775; hereinafter Kohada) in view of David Paul Felsher (US 2010/0241595; hereinafter Felsher).
Regarding claim 7, Kohada discloses all the limitations (as previously rejected), except for the management server or a code issuing server that is provided with the medical institution ID from the management server includes a code information generation unit configured to generate code information that does not include both the log-in information and the patient initial information, and includes the medical institution ID, and the medical institution ID acquisition unit of the patient terminal acquires the medical institution ID obtained by reading and decrypting the code information by a code reading unit of the patient terminal.
Felsher, in an analogous art, discloses that the management server or a code issuing server that is provided with the medical institution ID from the management server includes a code information generation unit configured to generate code information that does not include both the log-in information and the patient initial information, and includes the medical institution ID (paragraphs [0217 – 0218], [0238]), and
the medical institution ID acquisition unit of the patient terminal acquires the medical institution ID obtained by reading and decrypting the code information by a code reading unit of the patient terminal (paragraphs [0218], [0298]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kohada by showing that the management server or a code issuing server that is provided with the medical institution ID from the management server includes a code information generation unit configured to generate code information that does not include both the log-in information and the patient initial information, and includes the medical institution ID, and the medical institution ID acquisition unit of the patient terminal acquires the medical institution ID obtained by reading and decrypting the code information by a code reading unit of the patient terminal as evidenced by Felsher for the purpose of protecting patient’s information in a highly secure and reliable manner.
Regarding claim 8, Kohada discloses the treatment application management system according to claim 1,
wherein the management server or a code issuing server that is provided with the medical institution ID from the management server includes a code information generation unit configured to generate code information including the medical institution ID and provides the generated code information to a medical institution terminal that is used in the medical institution (paragraphs [0008], [0076], [0086]), and
the medical institution ID acquisition unit of the patient terminal acquires the medical institution ID obtained by reading and decrypting the code information displayed on a display device of the medical institution terminal by a code reading unit of the patient terminal (paragraph [0162]; Kohada discloses that when a limitation code is received from the management server 100, the communication unit 210 delivers the limitation code to the control unit 230. When the limitation code is delivered, the application limiting unit 232 of the control unit 230 extracts an application ID included in the limitation code. Then, the application limiting unit 232 limits the therapeutic application corresponding to the extracted application ID (Step S1009)).
Claims 11 – 20 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 10 in a system form rather than a program form. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 10 apply in claims 11 – 20. Therefore, claims 11 – 20 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457