DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to the application filed on 8 September 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending and presented for examination.
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 Application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2023/045456, filed on 19 December 2023, which claims foreign priority to JP2023-035592, filed on 8 March 2023. The claim to priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8 September 2025 and 9 September 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 8 September 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that “a related-person” as used, e.g., at claim 1 is not necessarily a person of family relation – Applicant ¶ 0019 indicates this to be a person utilizing the medical person terminal “such as a medical person who utilizes the vital information of the user”. Therefore, this is interpreted broadly as anyone, including but not limited to any medical persons, that may utilize the acquired information.
The Examiner notes that “an online medical care unit” as used, e.g., at claim 2 is not actually a care unit, such as may be found at a hospital – Applicant ¶ 0034 indicates this to, e.g., be “provid[ing] a video phone function”, “send[ing] connection information such as an address for performing video phone to the doctor”, it “allows the doctor to perform the online medical examination”, or “for example, the process of sending an instruction to perform the online medical care to the medical person terminal 3, or the process of setting a schedule of the online medical care”. Therefore, this is interpreted broadly as a device, computer, or software enabling various types of communication.
The Examiner notes that “the vital information detected by the user” as at claim 3 is interpreted to mean “the vital information of the user detected by the detection unit” since there is no antecedent basis for detection of anything by the user.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit”, “an acquisition unit”, and “a reporting unit” (at claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9), “an online medical care unit” (at claim 2), “a storage unit”, “an abnormality determination unit”, and “a transmission unit” (at claims 3 and 9), “a threshold setting unit” (at claim 5), “an emotion estimation unit” (at claim 7), “a reception unit” and “a hospital visit reservation unit” (at claim 8).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 each refer to a “unit” as performing a function (“a detection unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a reporting unit”, “an online medical care unit”, “a storage unit”, “an abnormality determination unit”, “a transmission unit”, “a threshold setting unit”, “an emotion estimation unit”, “a reception unit”, and “a hospital visit reservation unit”). The Examiner has searched for these “units” and does not find a definition of particular or specific structure for performing the respective functions. The closest description, generally, is Applicant ¶¶ 0105-0106 indicating that the functions may be performed by “hardware alone, software alone, or a combination of the two” (at 0105). MPEP § 2106.01(I) says that “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”
Since the specification does not indicate particular hardware, and also since there is no algorithm the Examiner has been able to find, claims 1-9 each lack written description support.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 each refer to a “unit” as performing a function (“a detection unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a reporting unit”, “an online medical care unit”, “a storage unit”, “an abnormality determination unit”, “a transmission unit”, “a threshold setting unit”, “an emotion estimation unit”, “a reception unit”, and “a hospital visit reservation unit”). The Examiner has searched for these “units” and does not find a definition of particular or specific structure for performing the respective functions. The closest description, generally, is Applicant ¶¶ 0105-0106 indicating that the functions may be performed by “hardware alone, software alone, or a combination of the two” (at 0105). It therefore is indefinite whether a/the “unit(s)” are comprised of hardware or software. MPEP § 2106.01(I) also says that “If the specification does not provide a disclosure of sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation in a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or the sixth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, "the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention" as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 ]. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 must be made in addition to the written description rejection”.
As such, claims 1-9 are also indefinite.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system (claims 1-8), a terminal (claim 9), a method (claim 10), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 11), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
The Examiner notes that although it is unclear whether the “unit” phrasing is in reference to a hardware component, or software, or a combination thereof, the “unit”(s) are being treated for purposes of examination as either being a device, or the activity being performed by some form of device (therefore, as underlined).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites an information communication system comprising: a detection unit that detects vital information of a user; an acquisition unit that acquires, online, the vital information detected by the detection unit; and a reporting unit that reports information related to the vital information acquired by the acquisition unit to a related-person terminal held by a predetermined related person.
Independent claims 9-11 are analyzed in a similar manner to claim 1 above since:
Claim 9 is directed to a user terminal comprising: a detection unit that detects vital information of a user; a storage unit that records, offline, target information including at least one selected from the vital information, and information related to an amount injected, the number of injections, and meals of the user; and a transmission unit that transmits the target information to a server during an online time period.
Claim 10 is directed to a computer control method comprising the same or similar activities as indicated at claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute the same or similar activities as indicated at claim 1 above.
The dependent claims (claims 2-8) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims (other than the recitation of a “unit” performing one or more functions – see the 112 rejections above) since they merely indicate an online medical care unit that executes a process for performing care when the vital information satisfies a predetermined condition (claim 2), a storage unit, an abnormality determination unit, and a transmission unit storing the vital information, detecting an abnormality, conveying information, and the reporting unit reporting a determination of abnormality (claim 3), the acquisition and reporting units acquiring patient data of an amount or number of insulin injection(s) and/or meals of the user, and reporting an insulin dose or meal (claim 4), a threshold setting unit setting an abnormality threshold based on past data, and the reporting unit reporting the vital information exceeds the threshold (claim 5), the detection unit detecting vital information during a web conference (claim 6), an emotion estimation unit estimating an emotion of the user based on the vital information (claim 7), a reception unit and a hospital visit reservation unit receiving a request for a medical examination, and registering the request (claim 8).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of assessing and reporting vital and/or other information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the primarily in the Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) grouping(s) of subject matter as based on the assessments being capable of being performed in the human mind, including with the use of pen/pencil and paper.
The Examiner also notes, however, that the grouping of Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as … advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) is also implicated in that persons can detect and acquire vital information so as to report it to a “related-person” such as medical personnel.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are a user terminal comprising the various units (i.e., “a detection unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a reporting unit”, “an online medical care unit”, “a storage unit”, “an abnormality determination unit”, “a transmission unit”, “a threshold setting unit”, “an emotion estimation unit”, “a reception unit”, and “a hospital visit reservation unit”) at the independent and dependent claims, also that the method is “a computer control method” (at claim 10), and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute (at claim 11).
These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction 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 (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant ¶¶ 0015, 0019, and 0024 indicate the user and medical person terminals as merely being a smartphone, tablet, or personal computer. There does not appear to be any indication that the detection devices that may be used would be anything other than standard, normal blood pressure monitors, oximeters, etc.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nunome (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0037056).
Claim 1: Nunome discloses an information communication system comprising:
a detection unit that detects vital information of a user (see Nunome at least at, e.g., ¶ 0029, “the patient-side device 14 includes, as the physical-information obtaining devices, an automatic blood-pressure (BP) measuring device 28, a pulse-wave-propagation-velocity-relating-information obtaining device 30, a body-weight meter 32, a pedometer 34, and a clinical thermometer 36”; citation hereafter by number only) ;
an acquisition unit that acquires, online, the vital information detected by the detection unit (0038, “A physical-information transmitting means 50 transmits the various sorts of physical information (e.g., blood-pressure values BP, etc) received by the signal receiver 46, together with the identification data SI input through the input device 26a by the patient and identifying the patient, to the central control device 16 via the communication network 24”, 0060, “the physical-information obtaining device 28-36 is transmitted to the central control device 16, so that the physical information is subjected to preliminary diagnosis by the control device 16”); and
a reporting unit that reports information related to the vital information acquired by the acquisition unit to a related-person terminal held by a predetermined related person (0044, “A physical-information transmitting means 64 transmits, if the preliminary-diagnosis means 62 makes a preliminary diagnosis that the current physical information transmitted from the patient-side terminal device 26 needs a proper diagnosis to be made by a doctor, the current physical information together with the patient's name and at least one piece of past physical information of the same sort stored in the memory device 16a, to one or more doctor-side terminal devices 18, 20, 22 which is or are registered in advance, for the sort of physical information, by a doctor-side-terminal-device registering means 66”).
Claim 2: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, further comprising an online medical care unit that executes a process for performing online medical care on the user when the information related to the vital information is reported to the related-person terminal by the reporting unit in response to a fact that the vital information satisfies a predetermined condition (0049, “A physical-information-display control means 72 operates the display device 18b to display all the information transmitted from the central control device 16, that is, the physical information judged as being not normal by the preliminary-diagnosis means 62, the patient's name from which the physical information was obtained, and the one or more pieces of past physical information stored for the patient in the memory device 16a. A doctor who is familiar with the patient makes a proper or final medical diagnosis based on the information displayed on the display device 18b”).
Claim 3: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, comprising:
a storage unit that stores the vital information detected by the user in a terminal (0020, “patient-side devices each of which includes at least one physical-information obtaining device which obtains at least one piece of current physical information from a corresponding one of a plurality of patients including the patient, the preliminary-diagnosis means comprises a memory device which stores, for each of the plurality of patients, at least one piece of past physical information”);
an abnormality determination unit that detects an abnormality in the vital information (0044, “the preliminary-diagnosis means 62 makes a preliminary diagnosis that the current physical information transmitted from the patient-side terminal device 26 needs a proper diagnosis to be made by a doctor” – needing a proper diagnosis indicating an abnormality determination); and
a transmission unit that conveys the information stored in the terminal to an online server (0034, “The terminal device 26 transmits the received information to the central control device 16 via the communication network 24” – the central control device as a server), wherein
the reporting unit reports, to the predetermined related person, a fact that the abnormality in the vital information of the user is determined (0044, “A physical-information transmitting means 64 transmits, if the preliminary-diagnosis means 62 makes a preliminary diagnosis that the current physical information transmitted from the patient-side terminal device 26 needs a proper diagnosis to be made by a doctor, the current physical information together with the patient's name and at least one piece of past physical information of the same sort stored in the memory device 16a, to one or more doctor-side terminal devices 18, 20, 22 which is or are registered in advance, for the sort of physical information, by a doctor-side-terminal-device registering means 66”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above since Nunome discloses a computer control method comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above (as cited above, for claim 10) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above (at 0035 and as cited above, for claim 11)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takase (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0019752).
Claim 9: Takase discloses the user terminal comprising:
a detection unit that detects vital information of a user (Takase at 0433, “The term "information of therapy instructions" used herein refers to every instruction and teaching given by the physician for the treatment of a given disease; and the term "information of patient's result report" used herein refers to every therapy result obtained from a patient to which the therapy is applied such as the actions taken by the patient in compliance with the instructions from the physician, and the results of therapy applied to the patient in compliance with the instructions from the physician including the results of daily blood sugar measurement, data of various tests, the number of insulin administration, the dosage of insulin, the diet units of each meal, the exercise amount (in terms of steps measured with a pedometer), the amount of consumed calorie, etc”, 0434, “;The term may also include the data of blood pressure and weight of the patient obtained as appropriate”, at least blood pressure and weight indicating vital signs);
a storage unit that records, offline, target information including at least one selected from the vital information, and information related to an amount injected, the number of injections, and meals of the user (Takase at 0438, “Because the portable terminal is provided with various high-grade functions such as storage of data, display, generation of an alarming sound, etc., it allows the physician and the patient to give a more detailed and precise description of prescription and instructions, and of therapy results than would be possible if the same were done by mouth or by a document”, 0435, “Patient A revisits the hospital carrying the portable terminal or portable telephone unit, and hands it to the physician. The portable terminal or portable telephone unit is electrically connected to the host computer; and the information of therapy results fed by patient A during the period between the previous visit and this visit is transmitted to the host computer”, and 0433-0434 as above indicating the particular data); and
a transmission unit that transmits the target information to a server during an online time period (Takase at 0051, “The patient connects the computer, portable terminal or portable telephone unit storing the information of the disease course and therapy result, to the network for transmitting the information to the host computer on the side of the physician” – indicating that the locally stored data may be transmitted by network rather than via physical connection as at 0435).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome in view of Takase (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0019752).
Claim 4: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 3, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition unit acquires patient data including at least one selected from information related to an amount of insulin injection, the number of insulin injections, and meals of the user, and the reporting unit reports, to the user, at least one selected from insulin doses and meals reflecting nutrient balance based on the patient data. Takase, though, teaches an "’information of therapy instructions’ … [that] “refers to every instruction and teaching given by the physician for the treatment of a given disease; and … [an] ‘information of patient's result report’ … [that] refers to every therapy result obtained from a patient to which the therapy is applied such as the actions taken by the patient in compliance with the instructions from the physician, and the results of therapy applied to the patient in compliance with the instructions from the physician including the results of daily blood sugar measurement, data of various tests, the number of insulin administration, the dosage of insulin, the diet units of each meal, the exercise amount (in terms of steps measured with a pedometer), the amount of consumed calorie, etc.” (Takase at 0433) so that “it will be possible for the physician to accurately grasp the disease condition of the patient, and for the patient to rightly understand the prescription and instructions given to him/her, which will help the patient accurately and easily observe the prescription and instructions” (Takase at 0012). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to acquire and report patient insulin and diet information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to help the physician and patient provide and understand treatment instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the communication system of Nunome with the patient data of Takase in order to acquire and report patient insulin and diet information so as to help the physician and patient provide and understand treatment instructions.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to acquire and report patient insulin and diet information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to help the physician and patient provide and understand treatment instructions as explained above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome in view of Masuda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0336093).
Claim 5: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a threshold setting unit that sets an abnormality determination threshold based on past transition of the vital information of the user, wherein the reporting unit reports, to the predetermined related person, a fact that the vital information exceeds the threshold for the user. Masuda, though, teaches “The abnormality detection unit 123 receives the time-series data (biological information and event information) from the communication unit 121 and the storage unit 122, and sets a threshold for target biological information based on the time-series data received from the storage unit 122. Further, the abnormality detection unit 123 compares the biological information with the threshold based on the biological information and the event information at the time (current time) when the biological information and the event information are received from the communication unit 121. If the biological information exceeds the threshold, the abnormality detection unit 123 transmits the abnormality detection signal to the wearable terminal 110 through the communication unit 121” (Masuda at 0018), where “The biological information acquisition unit 111 includes a sensor for target biological information such as a body temperature, a blood pressure, a blood sugar level, an amount of activity, a heart rate, a cardiac potential, or a blood oxygen saturation level. In other words, the biological information indicates at least one of a body temperature, a blood pressure, a blood sugar level, an amount of activity, a heart rate, a cardiac potential, or a blood oxygen saturation level” (Masuda at 0020), in order to provide “accurate detection of abnormalities in biological information even if certain factors affect the biological information” (Masuda at 0003). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to set a threshold based on past patient information and report an abnormality is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to accurately detect abnormalities based on a variety of information variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the communication system of Nunome with the abnormality thresholds of Masuda in order to set a threshold based on past patient information and report an abnormality so as to accurately detect abnormalities based on a variety of information variables.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to set a threshold based on past patient information and report an abnormality is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to accurately detect abnormalities based on a variety of information variables as explained above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome in view of Vatanparvar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0128766, hereinafter Vatanparvar).
Claim 6: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the detection unit detects the vital information of the user during a web conference. Vatanparvar, though, teaches that “vital signs can be monitored during a video call (e.g., telehealth). In this scenario, the MCVS system 100 can be employed to monitor vital signs in real-time using a conventional local device with integrated video capture (not shown), such as , vital signs can be monitored during a video call (e.g., telehealth). In this scenario, the MCVS system 100 can be employed to monitor vital signs in real-time using a conventional local device with integrated video capture (not shown), such as a smart TV, tablet, laptop, or phone camera.” (Vatanparvar at 0073), where a video call such as for telehealth, conducted through devices such as a smart TV, tablet, laptop, or phone camera indicates a “web conference”. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to detect vital signs during a web conference is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow real-time visual and vital data monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the communication system of Nunome with the video call use of Vatanparvar in order to detect vital signs during a web conference so as to allow real-time visual and vital data monitoring.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to detect vital signs during a web conference is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow real-time visual and vital data monitoring as explained above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome in view of Buil et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0321401, hereinafter Buil).
Claim 7: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising an emotion estimation unit that estimates an emotion of the user based on the vital information. Buil, though, teaches a “system 1 for topic-related detection of the emotional state of a person according to the present invention. The system comprises a data recorder 10 for recording person-related data including one or more of video data, audio data, text data of the person (and/or third party related to the person, e.g. an informal care giver of the person). The data recorder 10 may comprise one or more of a camera 11 (e.g. a video camera), a microphone 12, a text receiving device 13 and a speech-to-text converter 14. Optionally, one or more vital sign monitor 15 for monitoring one or more vital signs (e.g. heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure, SpO2, etc.) of the person (and/or any third party related to the person, e.g. an informal care giver) may be provided, said vital sign monitor comprising one or more separate sensor(s) or being configured to obtain such vital signs from camera images of the person, in particular of the person's skin” (Buil at 0050) “for unobtrusive topic-related detection of the emotional state of a person enabling that a user, e.g. a HCP, teacher or trainer, is provided with information about the person's emotional state in an unobtrusive way at the right time so that e.g. the user does not get distracted from the conversation itself” (Buil at 0008). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to estimate an emotional state is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to better tell if a person is likely focused or distracted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the communication system of Nunome with the emotion detection of Buil in order to estimate an emotional state so as to better tell if a person is likely focused or distracted.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to estimate an emotional state is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to better tell if a person is likely focused or distracted as explained above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome in view of Minami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0358597, hereinafter Minami).
Claim 8: Nunome discloses the information communication system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a reception unit that receives, from the user, reservation information indicating a desire to receive a medical examination; and a hospital visit reservation unit that registers the reservation information with a predetermined electronic medical record system through a predetermined communication unit in response to reception of the reservation information without going through an Internet. Minami, though, teaches that “in FIG. 1, the medical image system 100 includes a modality(s) 10, a console(s) 20, an imaging diagnosis support device 30, an image management device 40, an RIS (Radiology Information System) 51, an electronic clinical record server 52, a reservation system 53, and a terminal(s) for medical worker(s) 54, and is connected for data communication via a communication network N such as a LAN (Local Area Network). These components of the medical image system 100 are in conformity with HL7 (Health Level Seven), DICOM (Digital Image and Communications in Medicine) standard, or the like and communicate with one another in conformity with DICOM standard” (Minami at 0037), including where “The electronic medical clinical server 52 generates electronic clinical record information including treatments and diagnoses to patients and examination orders for requesting the examinations of the patients according to the operation input via the terminal for medical workers 54” (Minami at 0043), with the “object of realizing efficiency improvement and optimization of workflows in medical fields” (Minami at 0010). The Examiner understands that using a LAN to register the reservation indicates that no Internet is used since it is a local network connection only. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to request a reservation, where the reservation is registered without using an Internet is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to realize efficiency and optimization of workflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the communication system of Nunome with the reservations of Minomi in order to request a reservation, where the reservation is registered without using an Internet so as to realize efficiency and optimization of workflow.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to request a reservation, where the reservation is registered without using an Internet is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to realize efficiency and optimization of workflow as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verkruysse et al., Remote plethysmographic imaging using ambient light. Opt Express. 2008 Dec 22;16(26):21434-45. doi: 10.1364/oe.16.021434. PMID: 19104573; PMCID: PMC2717852. Downloaded 23 June 2026 from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19104573/, indicating “Plethysmographic signals were measured remotely (> 1m) using ambient light and a simple consumer level digital camera in movie mode. Heart and respiration rates could be quantified up to several harmonics. Although the green channel featuring the strongest plethysmographic signal, corresponding to an absorption peak by (oxy-) hemoglobin, the red and blue channels also contained plethysmographic information. The results show that ambient light photo-plethysmography may be useful for medical purposes such as characterization of vascular skin lesions (e.g., port wine stains) and remote sensing of vital signs (e.g., heart and respiration rates) for triage or sports purposes” (at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights