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 .
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-11 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A health information processing device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
set, based on a relationship of injury/disease between a plurality of treatment periods of a subject, a degree of summarization of medical treatment records for each of the plurality of treatment periods;
and generate a summary of the medical treatment records in a target period including the plurality of treatment periods based on the medical treatment records and the degree of summarization.
*Claims 10 and 11 recite similar limitations as claim 1, but for a method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
setting and generating) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “processing device”, “memory configured to store instructions”, and “processor configured to execute the instructions”, nothing in the claims preclude the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping and thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions such as setting and generating also covers behavioral or interactions between people, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite additional subject matter which further narrows
or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “processing device”, “memory configured to store instructions”, and “processor configured to execute the instructions”
Claim 11 recites: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations
which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by “processing device”, “memory configured to store instructions”, “processor configured to execute the instructions”, and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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 “adding 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.
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Soli(US20190228847A1).
Claim 1
Soli discloses:
A health information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: set, based on a relationship of injury/disease between a plurality of treatment periods of a subject(Para 0206, Soli discloses an example of a health condition record, which tracks cholesterol levels over a period of time), a degree of summarization of medical treatment records for each of the plurality of treatment periods(Para 0194, Soli discloses summary of health records); and generate a summary of the medical treatment records in a target period(Para 0010, Soli discloses indicating dates to generate a health record summary of interest) including the plurality of treatment periods based on the medical treatment records(Figure 6J, Soli discloses medical treatment records) and the degree of summarization(Figure 10E, #9011A, #9011B, and #9011C, Soli discloses selectable options to customize the health record summary).
Claim 2
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set the degree of summarization for each of the plurality of treatment periods based on a relationship between injury/disease in a last treatment period in the target period and injury/disease in each of the plurality of treatment periods(Para 0206, Figure 6K, Soli discloses tracks cholesterol levels over a period of time(current vs past)).
Claim 3
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 2, wherein, as a treatment period has a higher degree of relevance of injury/disease to the last treatment period in the target period, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set the degree of summarization in the treatment period to be lower(Figure 10E, #9011A, #9011B, and #9011C, Soli discloses selectable options to customize the health record summary such that the degree of summarization can be higher or lower).
Claim 4
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify the injury/disease for each of the plurality of treatment periods based on the medical treatment records for each of the plurality of treatment periods(Figure 6K, Soli discloses specifies cholesterol level for the treatment periods based on medical record data for each period).
Claim 5
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a first medical treatment summary obtained by summarizing the medical treatment records related to each of the plurality of treatment periods(Para 0010, Soli discloses indicating dates to generate a health record summary of interest) by the degree of summarization related to each of the plurality of treatment periods(Figure 10E, #9011A, #9011B, and #9011C, Soli discloses selectable options to customize the health record summary), and generate a second medical treatment summary that is a summary of the medical treatment records in the target period based on the first medical treatment summary related to each of the plurality of treatment periods(Para 0025, Soli discloses the creation of a second record/summary based on data from the first).
Claim 6
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the medical treatment records for each of the plurality of treatment periods(Para 0008, Soli discloses receiving medical treatment record information), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the first medical treatment summary for each of the plurality of treatment periods based on the medical treatment records for each of the plurality of treatment periods(Figure 6K, Soli discloses cholesterol level over a plurality of time periods) and the degree of summarization related to each of the plurality of treatment periods(Figure 10E, #9011A, #9011B, and #9011C, Soli discloses selectable options to customize the health record summary).
Claim 7
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the first medical treatment summary with reference to summary information indicating a relationship between the degree of summarization(Figure 10E, #9011A, #9011B, and #9011C, Soli discloses selectable options to customize the health record summary) and summary sentences obtained by summarizing the medical treatment records related to each of the plurality of treatment periods based on the degree of summarization(Figure 8B, Soli discloses specified sentence structures based on summarizing headers (#7011A, #7011B, and #7011C)).
Claim 8
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive a correction input of the summary in the target period(Para 0309, Soli discloses the update of a health record summary).
Claim 9
Soli discloses:
The health information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the summary in the target period in such a way as to fall within an entry frame of a medical document to be applied(Figures 8K-8M, Soli discloses instructions to correct a summary such that the correction remains in format).
Claims 10 and 11
Claims 10 and 11 recite similar limitations as claim 1. Please see claim 1 analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oren(US11410756B2) discloses a method for summarizing medical events from electronic health records
Richards(US20210258239A1) discloses a network health data aggregation service for assessing network health but relies on similar logic as the current invention relating to healthcare data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights