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 .
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.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
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 – 13 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.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1 – 13), which recite the abstract idea steps of
store a plurality of detected first data;
exclude any of the plurality of first data;
extract a plurality of second data relating to a specific incident from the plurality of the excluded first data;
calculate from the plurality of second data a time slot in which the specific incident occurs more than a predetermined number of times;
receive third data detected in the blood purification treatment to the patient, and
output a graph of the third data with respect to time axis and the time slot with respect to the time axis.
When understanding the claimed invention as a whole, the Examiner looks at the Specification for guidance. The Specification breathes life into the claimed invention. It should be emphasized first that the specification describes the problem to overcome (emphasis added)
[0004] Such a known blood purification system can display information stored in the server and can make the medical worker or the like grasp the information. However, depending on the purpose of extraction, pieces of information stored as histories from which any desired pieces of information are to be extracted may include histories that are not suitable as the object of search. In such a case, the pieces of information extracted and displayed may be inappropriate in terms of the purpose of extraction. Consequently, the reliability of information may be deteriorated. In contrast, if such histories are deleted from the storage, actually necessary pieces of information cannot be extracted when searching is performed for another purpose of extraction.
[0005] The present invention has been conceived in view of the above circumstances and provides a blood purification system that is capable of effectively utilizing histories stored during blood purification treatment and that helps realize history search suitable for individual purposes of extraction, thereby increasing the reliability of information to be extracted and displayed.
Stating this in the negative, the invention is not directed towards a technological problem. The invention is not directed towards improving technology. Rather, the invention is directed towards improving data results. The invention applies technology to the abstract idea to achieve all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea.
These steps of 1 – 13, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The invention is directed towards improving patient treatments by “increasing the reliability of information to be extracted and displayed” (paragraph 5)
There is no practical application. The result of the claimed and disclosed invention is information that potentially has a function. For example, paragraph 46 includes, “The speaker makes it possible to generate an alarm or a warning for notifying anyone nearby of the occurrence of an abnormality in any of the devices operating for the blood purification treatment or in the patient, and to give the operator a guidance, with a voice or the like, on how to handle the blood purification apparatus or how to make various settings.” Another example of potential action is described in paragraph 71 as, “Thus, the timing of frequent occurrence (the frequent-occurrence time slot) of a desired particular incident that is considered to be paid attention to by the medical worker can be grasped in advance during the current session of blood purification treatment.” Other examples exist.
The Examiner pauses here to discuss the “blood purification apparatus.” The blood purification apparatus is claimed as performing steps. However, the apparatus, when understanding the claim as a whole performs extra-solution activity. That is, the blood purification apparatus provides input into the computer. Therefore, the blood purification apparatus does not make the invention less abstract. The Examiner has no suggestions for amending the claim and is not implying potential amendments.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 13, reciting particular aspects of how incident notification may be performed but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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 than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a computer configured to amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of a detection unit acquiring amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of exclude… any of the and extract… a plurality of amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of display… a graph amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 13, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 - 13; a computer electrically connected to the blood purification apparatus and display … by the communication module, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); calculate …, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Additional Elements
a blood purification apparatus – figure 2 and Mochizuki, Pre-Grant Publication 2017/ 0072122 figure 1 as prior published PCT 11/19/2015.
computer – paragraph 20, 60 personal computer
electrically connected – paragraph 112 wired or wireless
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 13, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, input is a touch panel, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); specific incident information to calculate the respective time slot, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: detection unit, storage unit, excluding unit, extracting unit, calculating unit, communication module in claim 1 – 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aota et al US 2025/0295845 A blood purification system is provided that is capable of effectively utilizing histories stored during blood purification treatment and that helps realize history search
Merchant Pub. No.: US 2015/0343126 A method for treating dialysate solutions used in dialysis wherein dialysate is treated in an early part of a dialysis treatment session
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights