CTNF 19/172,554 CTNF 94246 DETAILED ACTION This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 04/07/2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/07/2025 are in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-16 are drawn to a device, Claim 17 is drawn to a method, and Claim 18 is drawn to an art of manufacturer, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-18 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for analyzing medical practice data. Collecting a medical practice data to determine statistical result values are steps that could have been performed by a human but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Metal Process that can be performed using human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. Independent Claim 1, and similarly Claims 17 and 18, recites the steps of: “at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to acquire medical practice information including a date and time related to a medical practice and information related to an index value related to the medical practice, the date and time being included in a reference target period, which is a target period for analysis of an increase or decrease in the index value, and a comparison target period, which is a target period for comparison of the increase or decrease in the index value, derive a difference between a first statistical value of the information related to the index value in the comparison target period and a first statistical value of the information related to the index value in the reference target period for each of a plurality of item values of at least one predetermined item, derive an influence degree on the increase or decrease in the index value in the reference target period relative to the comparison target period for each item value of the at least one item, based on a second statistical value based on the medical practice information in the reference target period and the difference, and perform a display process for displaying the influence degree for at least one item value included in the at least one item”. These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations by a human mind with aid of pen and paper, reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process and Mathematical Concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a user the ability to collect a medical practice data, analyze the data deriving a statistical value and compare it to a target value to determine difference and display it”, which are steps that that could have been performed by a human to implement the abstract idea “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" defining steps reciting mental process that could have been performed using a human mind with aid of pen and paper but other than the mere nominal recitation of " processor, memory ", to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD ) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “ processor, memory, non-transitory readable medium ” that iteratively takes input data and analyzes said data to determine an output to performing generic computer functions “e.g. display[ing]” for determining a medical practice procedure performance such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) . There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent Claims 2-16, include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as As for claims 2-4, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process” but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). As for claims 5-7, 12-14, and 16, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “ processor, external device ” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps, e.g., “display...” that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). As for claims 8-11 and 15, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process” along with Mathematical Concepts, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “ processor, ” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps, e.g., “display...” that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (Google Machine translation JP2016071764A - “Yamazaki”) Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a medical service support device comprising: at least one processor (Yamazaki: [p.4]) , wherein the processor is configured to acquire medical practice information including a date and time related to a medical practice and information related to an index value related to the medical practice, the date and time being included in a reference target period, which is a target period for analysis of an increase or decrease in the index value, and a comparison target period, which is a target period for comparison of the increase or decrease in the index value, Yamazaki discloses selecting a medical facility and period to be evaluated and comparison target period analysis and obtaining the medical facility medical information that includes a facility code, hospitalization date, discharge date, hospitalization period, medical treatment date, etc., where each element is related to an index where the target period may indicate an increase or decrease as a percentage to the index value (Yamazaki: [p. 3-4]), derive a difference between a first statistical value of the information related to the index value in the comparison target period and a first statistical value of the information related to the index value in the reference target period for each of a plurality of item values of at least one predetermined item, Yamazaki discloses analysis information may include increase/decrease rate of the evaluated facility with respect to the comparison of the target value indicating statistical difference (e.g., +/- 0.1% or -2.1%) between the element and index value during the target period (Yamazaki: [p. 3, 5]), derive an influence degree on the increase or decrease in the index value in the reference target period relative to the comparison target period for each item value of the at least one item, based on a second statistical value based on the medical practice information in the reference target period and the difference, Yamazaki discloses calculating degree of influence for the change on the increase or decrease in the index value [second statistical value] for each element index target or reference index over the evaluated period (Yamazaki: [p. 3, 5]), perform a display process for displaying the influence degree for at least one item value included in the at least one item Yamazaki discloses the influence degree of each element is displayed in the form of a tree that visualizes the connection of the hierarchized elements, it is possible to easily grasp the element index that affects the increase or decrease in index value (Yamazaki: [p. 3, 6]). Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the medical practice includes at least one of an interview, an examination, a treatment, or a nursing care Yamazaki discloses the medical facility medical information includes medical treatment, surgery, and medical examination (Yamazaki: [p. 3-4]). Regarding Claim 3, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the index value includes at least one of presence or absence of a failure of the medical practice, a time related to the medical practice, an index value of a radiation dose generated by the medical practice, or an index value based on an image acquired by the medical practice Yamazaki discloses different elements each with index value such as treatment, presence/absence of a practice, i.e., surgery, etc. (Yamazaki: [p. 3]). Regarding Claim 5, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a display process for displaying the influence degree for each item value in ascending order or descending order Yamazaki discloses each element layer indicate an influence rate higher than other(s) and ranks the layers according to the influence rate (Yamazaki: [p. 5-6]). Regarding Claim 6, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to perform a display process for displaying the influence degree for a predetermined number of item values with a large or small influence degree in a manner distinguished from the influence degree for other item values Yamazaki discloses the number of elements categorized in accordance to different layers as the analyzed information displaying the influence rate of each element such as size or degree of influence from the reference or predetermined value (Yamazaki: [Fig. 5], [p. 4-6]). Regarding Claim 7, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive designation of a second item different from a first item for which the influence degree is derived, and perform a display process for displaying the plurality of item values in an order corresponding to the influence degree for at least one item value included in the second item Yamazaki discloses a multi-layer constituting each element index with description of the different elements labeled and the degree of influence for a second element that is different than the first element (Yamazaki: [Fig. 5], [p. 2, 3, 4, 5]). Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a display process for displaying the first statistical value in the reference target period for each item value, in addition to the influence degree Yamazaki discloses the degree of influence of the change is displayed along with statistical value (Yamazaki: [Fig. 5], [p. 4, 5]). Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to perform a display process for displaying at least one of the influence degree, the first statistical value, or the second statistical value in a graph Yamazaki discloses a graph displaying the degree of influence of the change along with statistical value for a first, second, third, etc. element (Yamazaki: [Fig. 5], [p. 4, 5]). Regarding Claim 10, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive the difference for each of the plurality of item values for each of a plurality of items, derive the influence degree for each of the plurality of item values for each of the plurality of items, and perform a display process for displaying the influence degree for at least one item value included in each of the plurality of items, for each of the plurality of items Yamazaki discloses analysis information may include fluctuation rate of the evaluated facility with respect to the comparison of the target value indicating statistical difference (e.g., +/- 0.1% or -2.1%) between the element and index value during the target period and calculating degree of influence for the change on the fluctuation in the index value for each element index target or reference index over the evaluated period (Yamazaki: [p. 3, 5]). Regarding Claim 14, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a variation in the influence degree for each item value of a second item different from a first item for which the influence degree is derived, and perform a display process for further displaying the variation Yamazaki discloses calculating the variation of the influence degree and fluctuation with respect to the increase/ decrease in index value of each element index (Yamazaki: [Fig. 7], [p. 6, 13, 14]). Regarding Claim 16, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive designation of the reference target period and the comparison target period Yamazaki discloses reference target period and comparison target period (Yamazaki: [Fig. 5]). Regarding Claim 17, Yamazaki teaches a medical service support method comprising: the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above. Regarding Claim 18, Yamazaki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a medical service support program causing a computer to execute: the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (Google Machine translation JP2016071764A - “Yamazaki”) in view of Terao et al. (US 2023/0197247 Al – “Terao”) Regarding Claim 4, Yamazaki teaches the medical service support device according to claim 1, wherein the date and time related to the medical practice include at least one of a start date and time of the medical practice, an end date and time of the medical practice, a reservation date and time of the medical practice, a reception date and time of the medical practice, or a call date and time for implementation of the medical practice Yamazaki discloses medical information to include hospitalization date and period and discharge date, treatment date (Yamazaki: [p. 2]). However, Yamazaki does not expressly disclose the time of the element such as examination time, reception time, etc. Terao discloses examination information to be displayed include reservation date/time, reception date/time, reception date, reception time, examination start date/time, etc. (Terao: [Fig. 7], [0105]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yamazaki disclosing medical information of a medical practice to incorporate information such as reception time/date, reservation time/date, examination time/date, etc., as taught by Terao which help in perform diagnosis efficiently and to optimize the diagnosis (Terao: [0004]). Claims Free of Art Claims 11-13, and 15 are free of art as they overcome the prior art rejection and none of the prior art discloses the limitation of these claims. However, the claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior Art Cited but not Applied The following document(s) were found relevant to the disclosure but not applied: US 2022/0028075 “SUGAHARA” discloses analyzes a radiographic image to determine the radiographic image, whose capture is determined to have failed, to be a failure and to decide an imaging failure reason such as position of the image, which is a reason for the determination, and correction information for eliminating the imaging failure reason, and displays the correction information on the display. JP 2004318751 “Sogo” discloses a medical practice time measurement system measure a medical practice time of a doctor or the like in a large hospital tending to exceed a prescribed medical examination time. JP489721382 discloses measuring medical device usage efficiency. The references are relevant since it discloses measuring medical practice efficiency via measuring staff and equipment utilization. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30. 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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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. /ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 2 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 3 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 4 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 5 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 6 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 7 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 8 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 9 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 10 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 11 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 12 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 13 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 14 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 15 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 19/172,554 Page 16 Art Unit: 3687
Prosecution Insights