CTNF 19/207,534 CTNF 89567 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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on May 14, 2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 7 , Claim 7 recites “the number of introduced patients.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a number of introduced patients.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to its dependence from Claim 7 . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-8 are drawn to an apparatus for evaluating medical institutions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 9 is drawn to a method for evaluating medical institutions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 10 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for evaluating medical institutions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Prong 1 of Step 2A Claim 1 , which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire index information including a plurality of indexes related to a target medical institution ; acquire an analysis result output by an analysis model that has referred to at least a part of the index information ; acquire explanatory information regarding at least a part of the analysis result, the explanatory information being information output from a generation model that has been subjected to machine learning and has referred to at least a part of the analysis result ; and generate output data including at least a part of the analysis result and at least a part of the explanatory information . The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of acquiring index information, an analysis result, explanatory information, and generating output data including at least part of the analysis result and at least a part of the explanatory information recite at least observations and evaluations, specifically collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the memory and processor), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of acquiring index information, an analysis result, explanatory information, and generating output data including at least part of the analysis result and at least a part of the explanatory information recite following rules or instructions in order to generate an evaluation of a medical institution), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below. Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 9-10 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1 , because the only difference between Claims 1 and 9-10 is that Claim 1 recites an apparatus, whereas Claim 9 recites a method, and Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Dependent Claims 2-8 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites types of data included in the analysis result, Claims 3-4 recite generating data to be input into the generation model, Claims 5-7 recite types of indices, Claim 8 recites types of data included in the output data, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-8 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1 . Hence Claims 1-10 recite the aforementioned abstract idea. Prong 2 of Step 2A Claims 1 and 9-10 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory, the processor, and the fact that the generation model being subject to machine learning) amount to no more than limitations which: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the memory and processor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0107]-[0109] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of the generation model being subjected to machine learning, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of machine learning, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, dependent Claims 2-8 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data recited in dependent Claim 2 and 5-8 ), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claim 1 , and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Hence Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Claims 1 and 9-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory, the processor, and the fact that the generation model being subject to machine learning), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which: amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by: The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature: [0107]-[0109] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the memory and processor) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems; Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite acquiring various data over a network, e.g. see [0027] of the as-filed Specification; Dependent Claims 2-8 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data recited in dependent Claim 2 and 5-8 ), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim 1 , and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Hence, Claims 1-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-10 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bua (US2003/0167187) in view of Gharat (US 2020/0210868) . Regarding Claim 1 , Bua teaches the following: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (The system includes a memory storing programs, e.g. see Bua [0038]-[0039].) ; and at least one processor (The system includes a processor, e.g. see Bua [0038]-[0039].) configured to execute the instructions to: acquire index information including a plurality of indexes related to a target medical institution (The system obtains various data (i.e. index information) related to the performance of a health care facility, e.g. see Bua [0048].) ; acquire an analysis result output by an analysis model that has referred to at least a part of the index information (The system determines a performance rating (i.e. an analysis result output) of the health care facility based on the obtained data, e.g. see Bua [0048] and [0050].) ; acquire explanatory information regarding at least a part of the analysis result, the explanatory information being information output from a generation model and has referred to at least a part of the analysis result (The system performs a method (i.e. a generation model) that generates a report (i.e. explanatory information) that includes (i.e. refers to) a facility’s rating (i.e. the analysis result), and provides data in a manner and a format that is understandable to a user, e.g. see Bua [0087].) ; and generate output data including at least a part of the analysis result and at least a part of the explanatory information (The system generates a screen shot (i.e. output data) on a user computer, e.g. see Bua [0083], wherein the screen shot includes the facility rating (i.e. the analysis result) and a link to the report (i.e. the explanatory information), e.g. see Bua [0084]-[0087], Fig. 5.) . But Bua does not teach and Gharat teaches the following: wherein the generation model has been subjected to machine learning (The system generates a display screen (i.e. explanatory information) that visualizes healthcare facility-related data from a machine learning system, e.g. see Gharat [0044]-[0045], Fig. 2, wherein the machine learning system is trained on patient-specific data and facility-specific data, e.g. see Gharat [0039]-[0041].) . Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Bua to incorporate subjecting the system to machine learning and/or utilizing training data to train the system as taught by Gharat in order to continuously improve the calculations performed by the system, e.g. see Gharat [0040]. Regarding Claim 2 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 1 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim l, wherein the analysis result includes information regarding a correlation between one or a plurality of target indexes obtained from the index information and one or a plurality of factor indexes obtained from the index information (The performance rating (i.e. the analysis result) is based on variables (i.e. indices) including types of violations and deficiencies with respect to certain standards of care (i.e. the deficiencies are interpreted as factor indexes, and the standards are interpreted as target indexes), e.g. see Bua [0048].) . Regarding Claim 3 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 2 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a prompt to be input to the generation model with reference to at least a part of the analysis result (The method (i.e. the generation model) that generates the report includes the ratings (i.e. the analysis result) in the report, e.g. see Bua [0087].) . Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 3 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a prompt to be input to the generation model by using a prompt template preset for each factor index (The method (i.e. the generation model) that generates the report includes the ratings (i.e. the analysis result as inputs) in the report, e.g. see Bua [0087], wherein the ratings are calculated based on the raw data (i.e. factor indexes as inputs for the analysis result), e.g. see Bua [0048] and [0050], wherein the raw data includes data indicative of whether or not violations or deficiencies are present according to regulations associated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (i.e. a prompt template for each factor index), e.g. see Bua [0050].) . Regarding Claim 5 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 2 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or plurality of factor indexes are indexes related to at least one of doctor information, time information, hospitalization information, outpatient information, disease information, treatment information, patient information, and medical care information included in the index information (The raw data (i.e. factor indexes) includes data related to facility compliance with various standards of care and healthcare performance, e.g. see Bua [0048] and [0050], and various patient data, for example data related to Alzheimer’s and types of treatments, e.g. see Bua Fig. 4A-4B.) . Regarding Claim 6 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 2 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or plurality of target indexes include at least one of an index related to patient admission and discharge, an index related to a status of a hospital bed, and an index related to cost incurred with a medical service for a patient (The raw data (i.e. factor indexes) includes data related to facility compliance with various standards of care and healthcare performance, e.g. see Bua [0048] and [0050], and including Medicaid (i.e. cost) data, bed data, e.g. see Bua [0050] and [0080], Figs. 4A-4C, wherein the raw data is compared to standards of care and/or regulations (i.e. target indices) in order to determine compliance, e.g. see Bua [0050].) . Regarding Claim 7 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 6 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the one or plurality of target indexes include at least one of an average number of days in hospital, a hospital bed utilization rate, and the number of introduced patients (The standard data (i.e. the target indexes) may include factoring in a certain standard patient population size (i.e. a number of introduced patients), e.g. see Bua [0064].) . Regarding Claim 8 , the combination of Bua and Gharat teaches the limitations of Claim 7 , and Bua further teaches the following: The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the output data includes information for supporting decision-making regarding management of the target medical institution (The generated screen shot (i.e. the output data) provides information to a user that facilitates the user making a selection of (i.e. management of) a health care facility, e.g. see Bua [0018] and [0046]-[0047], Fig. 5.) . Regarding Claims 9-10 , the limitations of Claims 9-10 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1 , with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites an apparatus whereas Claim 9 recites a method and Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 9-10 , Examiner notes that Bua teaches a system and method that may be embodied as a computer executing a software program, e.g. see Bua [0039]-[0040] and [0044], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 9-10 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 2 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 3 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 4 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 5 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 6 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 7 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 8 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 9 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 10 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 11 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 12 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/207,534 Page 14 Art Unit: 3681
Prosecution Insights