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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 3-6 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.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites “accept, for one or more second items among the plurality of items belonging to the second category.” This is unclear because this language does not specify what data is actually being accepted in this step, as the previous recitations of the intervention performed and the reason for the intervention have been canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claim 3 will be interpreted as only reciting the step of accepting the record regarding matters that the interviewer has understood about the interviewee in the interview for one or more first items. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence from Claim 3.
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 1-8 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-6 are drawn to an apparatus for recording information from an interview, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 7 is drawn to a method for recording information from an interview, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for recording information from an interview, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: An interview record entering support apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
circuitry configured to:
accept selection of one or more elements performed in an interview from among a plurality of elements that constitute a dialogue process between an interviewer and an interviewee;
acquire one or more acquired data item identifiers associated with the selected one or more elements;
search a tree structure corresponding to leaf nodes that are descendants of the acquired data item identifiers;
acquire a first tree structure corresponding to routes to the leaf nodes;
for a leaf node associated with a reason input flag, acquire a second tree structure starting from a reference destination acquired data item identifier and connect the second tree structure to the first tree structure;
generate an input screen based on the connected first tree structure and second tree structure;
accept a record regarding the interview for an item associated with any of the selected elements from among the plurality of items that are candidates for registering regarding the interview to review the interview; and
register the record in the memory,
wherein each of the plurality of items is associated with any one of a plurality of categories that classify the plurality of items, wherein the plurality of categories include a first category related to understanding of the interviewee, and a second category related to an intervention, wherein the second category includes the intervention performed by the interviewer on the interviewee in the certain interview and a reason for the intervention.
The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of accepting a selection of data for a dialogue, acquiring item identifiers, searching a tree structure for descendants of the item identifiers, acquiring a first tree structure, acquiring a second tree structure, connecting the second tree structure to the first tree structure, generating an input screen based on the connected first and second tree structures, accepting a record regarding the interview, and registering the record, wherein the items is associated with first and second categories recite filtering data and/or following rules or instructions for gathering and recording interview data between individuals), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 7-8 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 7-8 is that Claim 1 recites an apparatus, whereas Claim 7 recites a method, and Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Dependent Claims 2-6 include other limitations, for example Claims 2-3 recite categorizing and recording the items, Claims 4-5 recite presenting the record and a reason for the intervention, and Claim 6 recites a parent-child relationship for the categories and displaying category information, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-6 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Hence Claims 1-8 recite the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 7-8 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory and circuitry) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the memory and circuitry, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0011]-[0014] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language claiming that the selected elements are elements performed in an interview, and claiming that records pertain to an interview, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of consultations/dialogue/interviewing, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-6 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data and the structure of the data recited in dependent Claims 2-6), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory and circuitry), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0011]-[0014] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the memory and the circuitry) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and registering of the record of the interview;
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite receiving data identifiers and tree structures over a network, e.g. see [0015] of the as-filed Specification;
Dependent Claims 2-6 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data and the structure of the data recited in dependent Claims 2-6), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-8 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-8 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pories (US 2002/0082868) in view of David (US 2003/0181790).
Regarding Claim 1, Pories teaches the following: An interview record entering support apparatus comprising:
a memory (The system may be embodied as computer program code stored on a computer readable memory, e.g. see Pories [0041]-[0044].); and
circuitry (The functions of the system may be executed by a computer, e.g. see Pories [0041]-[0044].) configured to:
accept selection of one or more elements performed in an interview from among a plurality of elements that constitute a dialogue process between an interviewer and an interviewee (The system enables a clinician (i.e. an interviewer) to make various selections for a patient (i.e. an interviewee) including words and phrases (i.e. one or more elements from a plurality of elements) that describe symptoms, e.g. see Pories [0047]-[0052].);
accept a record regarding the interview for an item associated with any of the selected elements from among a plurality of items that are candidates for registering regarding the interview to review the interview (The system receives and stores the clinician-selected words and phrases from a Defined Retrievable Clinical Lexicon (DRCL) list corresponding to (i.e. associated with) a present illness/condition (i.e. an item) for the patient, from a menu of available illnesses/conditions (i.e. a plurality of items that are candidates for registering), e.g. see Pories [0047]-[0052], [0082], and [0089].); and
register the record in the memory (The system stores the written clinical record when the selection by the clinician is completed, e.g. see Pories [0050] and [0094].),
wherein each of the plurality of items is associated with any one of a plurality of categories that classify the plurality of items (The data elements available for selection (i.e. items) include symptoms associated with a current disease and/or any category of information having an associated lexicon associated therewith, e.g. see Pories [0047]-[0052].), wherein the plurality of categories include a first category related to understanding of the interviewee, and a second category related to an intervention (The categories corresponding to the DRCLs include etiology of the patient condition (i.e. understanding of the interviewee), and questions (i.e. interventions) to be asked of the patient, e.g. see Pories [0083] and [0103], Figs. 12-13.), wherein the second category includes the intervention performed by the interviewer on the interviewee in the certain interview and a reason for the intervention (The DRCLs provides a prompt of questions (i.e. interventions) to ask the patient during the patient encounter, e.g. see Pories [0083], wherein the DRCL corresponds to an illness/condition (i.e. a reason for the intervention), e.g. see Pories [0082].).
But Pories does not teach and David teaches the following:
acquire one or more acquired data item identifiers associated with the selected one or more elements (The system receives user selections of various entries (i.e. selected elements), and identifies corresponding items (i.e. data item identifiers) linked in a hierarchical manner with the selections, e.g. see David [0033]-[0034] and [0040], Figs. 5, 6B. For example, the system identifies various types of “organs” in response to a user selection of “Digestive” systems, e.g. see David Fig. 5, and/or “sinuses” in response to a user selection of “head” as a part, e.g. see David Fig. 6B.);
search a tree structure corresponding to leaf nodes that are descendants of the acquired data item identifiers (The system automatically determines lower-level catalogues for each user selection, wherein the catalogues are linked in a hierarchical manner, e.g. see David [0030]-[0034], Figs. 4-5, 6B.);
acquire a first tree structure corresponding to routes to the leaf nodes (The system identifies a lower-level catalogue (i.e. a first tree structure) in response to a user selection, e.g. see David [0033]-[0034] and [0040], Figs. 5, 6B. For example, a user selecting “stomach/duodenum” from an organ catalogue causes the system to acquire items belonging to the “Diagnosis on Stomach/Duodenum” catalogue, and/or a user selecting “head” from a parts catalogue causes the system to acquire items belonging to the “parts of zoom” catalogue including “sinuses,” “forehead,” “right temple,” and “left temple,” e.g. see David Figs. 5, 6B.);
for a leaf node associated with a reason input flag, acquire a second tree structure starting from a reference destination acquired data item identifier and connect the second tree structure to the first tree structure (The user may provide an input, for example a selection of “head” for a part (i.e. a reason input flag), and in response retrieves an additional catalogue (i.e. a second tree structure), for example “symptoms” such as “pain,” e.g. see David [0040], Fig. 6B.);
generate an input screen based on the connected first tree structure and second tree structure (Each of the retrieved catalogues (i.e. the first and second tree structures) enable a user to make a selection causing a further catalogue including additional selectable elements to be displayed, e.g. see David Figs. 5, 6B.);
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Pories to incorporate the tree structures as taught by David in order to enable a user to precisely and continually narrow a patient diagnosis until a final level of abstraction or description is achieved while minimizing the time required to enter information by reducing search time, e.g. see David [0033] and [0045].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Pories and David teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Pories further teaches the following: The interview-record-entering support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry is configured to accept the record regarding the interview for a given item, among the plurality of items, belonging to a given category that is associated with any of the selected elements among the plurality of categories (The system stores the completed patient record for the illness/condition (i.e. the item) that is associated with DRCLs, categories, and words and phrases (i.e. the elements) of the DRCLs, e.g. see Pories [0050] and [0094].).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Pories and David teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Pories further teaches the following: The interview-record-entering support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the circuitry is configured to:
accept, for one or more first items among the plurality of items belonging to the first category, the record regarding matters that the interviewer has understood about the interviewee in the interview (The system accepts clinician selections of words and phrases that apply to the patient’s (i.e. interviewee’s) illness/condition, e.g. see Pories [0103]-[0105], Figs. 12-13.).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Pories and David teaches the limitations of Claim 3, and Pories further teaches the following: The interview-record-entering support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the circuitry is configured to present the record accepted for a given first item of the first items as a given candidate for the reason for the intervention that is accepted for a given second item of the second items (The system enables a clinician to select an illness/condition (i.e. an item) from a plurality of illnesses/conditions (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as candidates), e.g. see Pories [0047]-[0052]. Furthermore, the system enables a clinician to select additional illnesses/conditions (i.e. a selected additional illness may be interpreted as a second item), e.g. see Pories [0082], Fig. 21. Additionally, the system displays the records to a user in searchable form, e.g. see Pories [0050] and [0094].).
Regarding Claims 7-8, the limitations of Claims 7-8 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites an apparatus whereas Claim 7 recites a method, and Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 7-8, Examiner notes that Pories teaches a method, system, and a computer program product including a computer-usable storage medium, e.g. see Pories [0041], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 7-8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pories and David in view of Holub (US 2021/0313061).
Regarding Claim 5, Pories discloses the limitations of Claim 4, and Pories further discloses the following: The interview-record-entering support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the circuitry is configured to present, as the given candidate for the reason for the intervention accepted for the given second item, the record accepted for the given first item (The system displays any selected illnesses/conditions (i.e. first and second items) and any corresponding DRCLs and prompts (i.e. interventions), e.g. see Pories [0082]-[0083], Fig. 21.).
But Pories does not teach and Holub teaches the following:
for the given first item, a number of times the record has been selected as the reason for the intervention accepted for the second item in the past is equal to or more than a threshold (The system includes a machine learning model that aggregates and analyzes trends in a patient’s medical history and another patient’s medical history to determine one or more potential diagnoses for the patient, e.g. see Holub [0013], wherein the system recommends a potential diagnosis for the patient based on symptoms according to a threshold, e.g. see Holub [0034], and wherein a user may select a potential diagnosis, e.g. see Holub [0072]. Additionally, the recommendations may further be based on a medical provider’s historical use (i.e. selections) of recommendations and previous diagnoses of other patients, e.g. see Holub [0047] and [0065].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Pories and David to incorporate comparing historical medical information to a threshold to make a potential diagnosis as taught by Holub in order to improve patient outcome prediction performance, e.g. see Holub [0035].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pories and David in view of McMillan (US 2004/0039710), further in view of Holub.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Pories and David teaches the limitations of Claim 4, and Pories and David further teach the following: The interview-record-entering support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the plurality of categories have a parent-child relationship (The categories may be organized in a hierarchical relationship, e.g. see David [0031]-[0037] and [0040], Figs. 4-5, 6B.), and
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Pories to incorporate the hierarchical categories as taught by David in order to enable a user to precisely and continually narrow a patient diagnosis until a final level of abstraction or description is achieved while minimizing the time required to enter information by reducing search time, e.g. see David [0033] and [0045].
the circuitry is configured to present, as the given candidate for the reason for the intervention accepted for the given second item, a record that is accepted for one or more other first items (The system displays any selected illnesses/conditions (i.e. first and second items) and any corresponding DRCLs and prompts (i.e. interventions), e.g. see Pories [0082]-[0083], Fig. 21.).
But the combination of Pories and David does not teach and McMillan teaches the following
the one or more other first items are descendants of the first category as the given first item (A patient may have multiple diagnoses (i.e. a given first item and other first items), for example renal failure and chronic renal failure, wherein the diagnoses correspond to diagnosis groups, and may share a common condition category, e.g. see McMillan [0033]-[0035], Fig. 4.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Pories to incorporate the hierarchical categories for the diagnoses as taught by McMillan in order to improve the clinical validity and decrease the sensitivity to over-coding, e.g. see McMillan [0039].
But the combination of Pories, David, and McMillan does not teach and Holub teaches the following:
a total number of times the record being selected as the given candidate for the reason for the intervention accepted for the given second item in the past is equal to or greater than a threshold (The system includes a machine learning model that aggregates and analyzes trends in a patient’s medical history and another patient’s medical history to determine one or more potential diagnoses for the patient, e.g. see Holub [0013], wherein the system recommends a potential diagnosis for the patient based on symptoms according to a threshold, e.g. see Holub [0034], and wherein a user may select a potential diagnosis, e.g. see Holub [0072]. Additionally, the recommendations may further be based on a medical provider’s historical use (i.e. selections) of recommendations and previous diagnoses of other patients, e.g. see Holub [0047] and [0065].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Pories, David, and McMillan to incorporate comparing historical medical information to a threshold to make a potential diagnosis as taught by Holub in order to improve patient outcome prediction performance, e.g. see Holub [0035].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, as shown above, the newly amended claim language has necessitated the rejections of Claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it is not directed towards merely collecting or organizing information, but instead recites a specific implementation that employes a particular hierarchical data structure and specific operations performed on that data structure, e.g. see pgs. 1-3 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiners initially note that the claimed limitations of the present invention only recite a “particular” data structure in that the data is stored in any tree structure with leaf nodes, and in that said tree structures are connected. That is, reciting a specific type of data contained in the data structure (e.g. selected data from an interview) does not change the fact that the data structure recited by the Claims comprises any type of hierarchical and/or tree type of data structure. This is eminently distinguished from the invention of Enfish, for example, which recited a self-referential data table for a computer database which accomplished the technological improvements of increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. In contrast, [0007] and [0009] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the improvements achieved by the present invention comprise “improving the efficiency of inputting a record regarding an interview,” wherein the purpose of the interview is “to support behavioral changes in which a person who should improve his/her behavior such as to prevent a lifestyle-related disease,” e.g. see [0002] of the as-filed Specification. That is, rather than a technological improvement, the present invention recites, at most, improvements to data entry for the purpose of improving patient behavior, which comprises an improvement to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Additionally, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention recited “specific operations” to be performed on a data structure and/or a “concrete implementation,” Examiner notes that the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim will be eligible, and further notes that preemption is not a stand-alone test for patentability, but rather is inherent in the two-part Alice/Mayo framework, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. That is, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention recites a particular configuration for an abstract idea, a narrow abstract idea nonetheless recites an abstract idea, and the broadness/narrowness of the abstract idea is not, by itself, dispositive of the eligibility of the claim. Furthermore, as shown above, Examiner has provided evidence demonstrating that the present invention is directed towards at least one court-identified abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and further that the additional elements of the present invention (i.e. any elements not identified as part of the abstract idea) do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and hence has addressed any concerns arising from preemption.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, regarding the rejections of Claims 1-4 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been considered, and in combination with the amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-4 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, for the reasons disclosed above, and as will be further explained below, Claims 1-8 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, regarding the rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Pories is deficient because it does not teach any action or language derived from a physician as part of an interview, e.g. see pg. 4 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
[0047] of Pories teaches (emphasis added) that “when a patient-clinician encounter begins, the clinician will typically be presented with the chief complaint via a client device, and will begin to interview the patient,” and “based upon this interview, an illness…is selected by the clinician.” Additionally, [0050] of Pories teaches (emphasis added) that “the clinician may then proceed, by interviewing the patient, to select the words and phrases from among the DRCL list that are reported by the patient.” Hence, Pories teaches a clinician selecting words and phrases for a patient from an interview, and is not deficient to teach the features for which it is cited.
Applicant further alleges that Holub is deficient to teach the features of Claim 5, specifically because it does not teach “counting the exact number a reason has been accepted and registered…where the number is further used to be compared to a threshold value,” e.g. see pg. 5 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As shown above, Holub teaches recommending one or more potential diagnoses for a patient, e.g. see Holub [0034], and enabling the user to select a diagnosis, e.g. see Holub [0072], wherein the recommendations may further be based on a medical provider’s historical use (i.e. selections) of recommendations and previous diagnoses of other patients, e.g. see Holub [0047] and [0065]. That is, Holub teaches that a provider’s previous selection of a diagnosis is tracked, and used as a basis for the system recommending potential diagnoses in the future. Additionally, Examiner notes that “a number of times the record has been selected as the given candidate” being equal to or greater than a threshold merely requires, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the selection be equal to or greater than any number, including zero. In other words, a user selecting the record once may be sufficient to be equal to or greater than a threshold of zero. Hence, Holub is not deficient to teach the features for which it is cited.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Shtir (US 2017/0351807) – teaches a system of gene-disease associations organized in a hierarchical structure, wherein broader diseases are linked in parent-child relationships with more specific diseases.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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 H 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights