Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11742063. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite the same feature of associating the health record with the derived location information/ a corresponding location with the health data item; and determining a placement of a marker associated with the location information/a corresponding location on a canonical body map.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12334210. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite the same feature of a canonical body map to determine/ access a corresponding location with the health data item; and determining a placement of a marker associated with the location information/a corresponding location on a canonical body map.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1-7 recite(s) a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 8-14 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claim(s) 15-20 recite(s) a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claim 1 recites
A method for transforming health condition data into spatially contextualized representations, comprising:
retrieving, by a computer system, health record data including one or more standardized clinical codes associated with at least one medical condition pertaining to a patient;
using predefined mappings stored in memory, executing, by the computer system, a spatial mapping algorithm, the spatial mapping algorithm converting each standardized clinical code into a corresponding anatomical reference location on a canonical body map;
applying, by the computer system, a multidimensional spatial transformation to determine a display coordinate for each anatomical reference location on the canonical body map;
encoding, by the computer system, each clinical condition and corresponding metadata into a structured data format; and
generating, by a rendering engine executing on the computing system, a dynamically updated graphical interface that renders the canonical body map.
.
The limitations “retrieving, by a computer system, health record data including one or more standardized clinical codes associated with at least one medical condition pertaining to a patient; using predefined mappings stored in memory, executing, by the computer system, a spatial mapping algorithm, the spatial mapping algorithm converting each standardized clinical code into a corresponding anatomical reference location on a canonical body map”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation constitutes b) “a mental process” because examining/mapping location of health information on a body map can be performed by human, mentally or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
The limitation “encoding, by the computer system, each clinical condition and corresponding metadata into a structured data format; and generating, by a rendering engine executing on the computing system, a dynamically updated graphical interface that renders the canonical body map”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation constitutes c) “organizing human activity because encoding, each clinical condition and corresponding metadata into a structured data format
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 8 and 15 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claim 1 and claims 8 and 15 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 8 recites a non-transitory medium, and whereas claim 15 recites a system.
Furthermore, the following depending claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Dependent claim 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 recite specific limitation to create the health record, as being part of the abstract idea, and thus part of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Claim 1 recites
A method for transforming health condition data into spatially contextualized representations, comprising:
retrieving, by a computer system, health record data including one or more standardized clinical codes associated with at least one medical condition pertaining to a patient;
using predefined mappings stored in memory, executing, by the computer system, a spatial mapping algorithm, the spatial mapping algorithm converting each standardized clinical code into a corresponding anatomical reference location on a canonical body map;
applying, by the computer system, a multidimensional spatial transformation to determine a display coordinate for each anatomical reference location on the canonical body map;
encoding, by the computer system, each clinical condition and corresponding metadata into a structured data format; and
generating, by a rendering engine executing on the computing system, a dynamically updated graphical interface that renders the canonical body map.
Furthermore, claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because there is no application or use of the abstract idea in any meaningful way. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements, using a memory, a processing system, , etc…; (Spec., Paras 0030, 0050-0051) for processing data. The specification’s written description describes these mere generic components. These components encompass any number of suitable computer architectures. And thus, these components are recited at a high-level of generality. The specification does not provide any specific information of marking a placement associated with the location information Furthermore, the use of SNOMED-CT, a computing device to retrieve, to examine, to associate, to determine, to apply, to encode “add nothing when looking at the elements taken individually. 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.
And thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect step 2A, Prong One, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description describes these elements such as the processing system, a memory are generic computer components, (Spec.; Paras 0030, 0050-0051). The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Thus, claims 1-20 have been held as patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have ahrens et al. (EP2783716A1 hereinafter Ahrens)been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20130294664A1 hereinafter Zhang) in view of Prokoski (US 20100172567A1)
With respect to Claim 1, Zang teaches a method for transforming health condition data into spatially contextualized representations, comprising:
retrieving, by a computer system, health record data including one or more standardized clinical codes associated with at least one medical condition pertaining to a patient; (‘664; Para 0030: The patient record, including all available diagnostic data, may be retrieved from the medical information systems immediately after the requestor requests data for the patient; Para 0087: software may further analyze the diagnostic data associated with each target body part to determine if the data indicates the existence of a medical condition that deserves or requires the attention of a medical practitioner. A medical condition may be, for example, the existence, or possible existence, of a disease; Para 0071: target body part specifications are words or codes that identify target body parts for which diagnostic data is available. Such specifications are generally mapped to an internal coding that associates a unique identifier with each body part, and which may be used in the construction of a patient index as described below. Various differing approaches to specifying body parts in the patient record may be employed. Standardized codes, such as those defined by SNOMED CT™, may be referenced in the record and may be readily interpreted by the system. Where the coding used in the input differs from that used internally, the system must map the codes accordingly, which can be done via look-up tables for example. When unstructured English (or other language) words and phrases are used in the record, the system may employ natural language processing to map such specifications to the internal codes that they most directly correspond to; Para 0084: the PVS 106 may periodically poll the available MISs on the network 104 for patient records, some MISs may be configured to push patient records to the PVS 106 as they are added or revised, or a PVS 106 may query MISs upon receipt of a request from a requestor. In general, patients for whom information is available in the MISs are each identified by one or more unique identifiers. The PVS 106 may initially obtain records for all patients from the MISs and construct and store patient indexes in a visual index database, possibly along with some of the associated diagnostic data)
using predefined mappings stored in memory, executing, by the computer system, a spatial mapping algorithm, the spatial mapping algorithm converting each standardized clinical code into a corresponding anatomical reference location on a canonical body map (‘664; Para 0071: target body part specifications are words or codes that identify target body parts for which diagnostic data is available. Such specifications are generally mapped to an internal coding that associates a unique identifier with each body part, and which may be used in the construction of a patient index as described below. Various differing approaches to specifying body parts in the patient record may be employed. Standardized codes, such as those defined by SNOMED CT™, may be referenced in the record and may be readily interpreted by the system. Where the coding used in the input differs from that used internally, the system must map the codes accordingly, which can be done via look-up tables for example);
applying, by the computer system, a multidimensional spatial transformation to determine a display coordinate for each anatomical reference location on the canonical body map (‘664; Abstract: visually indexing medical data about a patient by generating an image for presentation to a user depicting a subset of the patient's body parts, with body parts having associated diagnostic data highlighted. A user may then select a highlighted body part and be presented with some or all of the associated diagnostic data. The user may manipulate the presented image, which is derived from a three dimensional model, to rotate it or zoom is to expose more body parts, or more detailed body parts depicting child body parts associated with the diagnostic data. The system or method may employ a patient index comprising a hierarchical graph with nodes corresponding to body parts and associated with diagnostic data for those body parts);
Prokoski teaches
encoding, by the computer system, each clinical condition and corresponding metadata into a structured data format (‘567; Para 0386: Current visual and infrared identification methods rely upon symmetrical features to establish face axes. Identification from profile images at unknown distances is done based on a 1D profile outline signature and can be easily defeated by facial expression or facial hair changes, or by use of cotton balls or other “plumper” material under the upper or lower lip. 2D Visual frontal face images must be processed into a canonical format); and
generating, by a rendering engine executing on the computing system, a dynamically updated graphical interface that renders the canonical body map (‘567; Para 0488: Medical image libraries standardized using 3D/IR feature mapping technology are accessed by search engines through services offering diagnostic and prognostic assistance. User interface is an interactive display of checkboxes through which the user designates a body part, scale resolution, imaging modality [which may include the make and model of the imager as well as the settings for that equipment], current medical issue or reason for current imaging, and query.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang with the technique of using three dimensional infrared imaging as taught by Prokoski and the motivation is to provide detailed anonical structure map.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rendering engine enables user interaction with condition- location associations in real time, and dynamically updates the graphical interface in response to changes in the clinical condition data by recalculating anatomical reference locations and redisplaying the associated mapped spatial coordinates (‘567; Abstract).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected as the same reason with claim 2.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the multidimensional spatial transformation incorporates non- uniform scaling and spatial offset parameters based on predefined anatomical reference points of the canonical body map (‘567; Abstract: location, and characteristics to produce annotations that are recorded with the images and feature maps in reference image libraries).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected as the same reason with claim 3.
With respect to Claim 4, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding preserves spatial and semantic relationships between the clinical condition and the canonical body map (‘567; Para 0083, 0088).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected as the same reason with claim 4.
With respect to Claim 5, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface displays the encoded clinical conditions at their corresponding mapped spatial coordinates (‘567; Para 0108: given selected reference origin and axes, 3D coordinates can be assigned to each control point on the actual calibration target, and to the representation of each control point in the infrared, visual, and range images.).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected as the same reason with claim 5.
With respect to Claim 6, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: transforming the anatomical reference locations on the canonical body map to corresponding spatial coordinates on a user-specific body model, wherein the transformation applies scaling and offset parameters derived from a set of reference points on the user-specific body model (‘567; Para 0054: Variations in landmark selection points create significant differences in scaling and can be seriously affected by intentional disguises, facial expressions, makeup, sunburns, shadows and similar unintentional disguises. Detecting the wearing of disguises and distinguishing between identical twins can generally not be done from visible imagery (2D or 3D) or range imagery from a distance).
Claim 13 is rejected as the same reason with claim 6.
With respect to Claim 7, the combined art teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the user-specific body model is generated using at least one of: a photograph of the user, a three-dimensional rendering of the user, or a selection from a predefined set of body shapes reflecting user attributes (‘567; Paras 0042-0044).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights