DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-17 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A medical reporter comprising circuitry configured to:
receive recorded data made by a plurality of speakers on a subject is recorded;
extract a word element, from recorded data in which content of a statement;
output extracted recorded data by using the recorded data which includes extracted word element with specified speaker;
specify, by using the extracted recorded data, and based on a concept indicated by each of a plurality of the extracted word elements, a word attribute for each of the word elements;
calculate, based on at least one of the word attribute, a speaker attribute of a speaker according to the word element, a temporal relation between time related to the content of the statement including the word element and reference time, and medical resource information on a medical resource according to the word element, an importance degree of each of the word elements; and
generate a report data based on the importance degree of each of the word elements, which presenting a candidate for a medical procedure to be performed on the subject.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving recorded data, extracting word elements, outputting data, specifying word attributes, calculating an importance degree for each word element, and generating report data for a patient candidate are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 16 & 17 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-15 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claim 2 recites display information listing patients, Claims 3-5, 8-11 recites calculating the importance, Claims 6-7 recites analyzing word elements, Claims 12-13 recites analyzing medical resource requirements, Claims 14-15 recite prompting a user to input information regarding medical procedure information. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 16 & 17, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A medical reporter comprising circuitry configured to:
receive recorded data made by a plurality of speakers on a subject is recorded;
extract a word element, from recorded data in which content of a statement;
output extracted recorded data by using the recorded data which includes extracted word element with specified speaker;
specify, by using the extracted recorded data, and based on a concept indicated by each of a plurality of the extracted word elements, a word attribute for each of the word elements;
calculate, based on at least one of the word attribute, a speaker attribute of a speaker according to the word element, a temporal relation between time related to the content of the statement including the word element and reference time, and medical resource information on a medical resource according to the word element, an importance degree of each of the word elements; and
generate a report data based on the importance degree of each of the word elements, which presenting a candidate for a medical procedure to be performed on the subject.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the circuitry, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 16 & 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: This claim recites a display apparatus displaying information and therefore amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and conventional activities as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the circuitry, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a display apparatus displaying information which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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. Independent claims 1 & 16-17 recite in part “extract a word element, from recorded data in which content of a statement”. The Examiner is unsure as to what the content of a statement refers to. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 2-15 are also rejected due to their dependency from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 1-4, 8, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amara (US20230104655) in view of Kano (US20220246300).
As per claim 1, Amara teaches a medical reporter comprising circuitry configured to:
receive recorded data made by a plurality of speakers on a subject is recorded (para. 24-25. 75: data input may be audio data that a doctor records and that a computing device at a hospital receives as an audio file; unstructured data may be written or spoken data, such as audio data; data that includes notes or audio recording from a medical professional treating the patient. Current data may be new data that was generated since the last update of data input to memory storage. Current data may also be data that was generated since a previous handover of a patient);
extract a word element, from recorded data in which content of a statement (para. 88: NLP models extract some or all concepts, including clinical issues, diagnoses, symptoms, treatments, etc., along with their attributes (e.g., section, negation, past, etc.) from the unstructured data);
output extracted recorded data by using the recorded data which includes extracted word element with specified speaker (para. 45: NLP model may receive data input and detect concepts and attributes of the concepts);
specify, by using the extracted recorded data, and based on a concept indicated by each of a plurality of the extracted word elements, a word attribute for each of the word elements (para. 45: NLP model may receive data input and detect concepts and attributes of the concepts);
calculate, based on at least one of the word attribute, a speaker attribute of a speaker according to the word element, a temporal relation between time related to the content of the statement including the word element and reference time, and medical resource information on a medical resource according to the word element, an importance degree of each of the word elements (para. 36, 107: prioritization module may prioritize key concepts associated with a patient).
which presenting a candidate for a medical procedure to be performed on the subject (para. 48: NLP model may receive data input that includes data of a patient, and may generate a list of patients that qualify for a study or an output that includes classifiers indicating whether a patient qualifies or does not qualify for the particular study).
Amara does not expressly teach generate a report data based on the importance degree of each of the word elements.
Kano, however, teaches to classify the diagnosis/treatment record entries into at least one category in accordance with the words extracted from the text information representing the diagnosis/treatment record entries of each patient and the polarities of the words in the context (para. 61). Kano also teaches to determine the change information of the patient's state indicating a state of the patient, on the basis of a temporal change in the frequency of appearance of the categories (para. 65). Kano further teaches to outputting a report based on the analysis of record entries where alert judging function notifies the user (e.g., a medical doctor) that the patient is a patient for whom it is recommended to implement observation or intervention with priority (para. 66).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Kano with Amara based on the motivation of easily understand chronological changes in the conditions of patients on the basis of what is written in diagnosis/treatment records (Kano – para. 4).
As per claim 2, Amara and Kano teach the medical reporter according to claim 1. Amara teaches wherein the circuitry causes a display apparatus to display information indicating candidates for a predetermined number of the medical procedures in a descending order of the importance degree (para. 48: NLP model may receive data input that includes data of a patient, and may generate a list of patients that qualify for a study or an output that includes classifiers indicating whether a patient qualifies or does not qualify for the particular study).
As per claim 3, Amara and Kano teach the medical reporter according to claim 1. Amara teaches wherein the circuitry calculates the importance degree by referring the word element of the attribute that is capable of becoming a candidate for the medical procedure (para. 105: order processing model may determine which treatment orders would treat key active clinical issues identified and rank the treatment orders according to the prioritized active clinical issues).
As per claim 4, Amara and Kano teach the medical reporter according to claim 3. Amara teaches, wherein
the circuitry
calculates the importance degree of all of the word elements (para. 107 : prioritization module may prioritize key concepts associated with a patient), and
presents a candidate for the medical procedure derived from the word element, for the word element of the attribute that is incapable of becoming a candidate for the medical procedure (para. 48: NLP model may receive data input that includes data of a patient, and may generate a list of patients that qualify for a study or an output that includes classifiers indicating whether a patient qualifies or does not qualify for the particular study).
As per claim 8, Amara and Kano teach the medical reporter according to claim 1. Amara teaches wherein
the circuitry
sets weight for calculating the importance degree, based on at least one of the word attribute, the speaker attribute, the temporal relation, and the medical resource information (para. 54: clinical problem index (CPI) used to determine which are key clinical issues and which are not key clinical issues given all the clinical issues identified based on the clinical issue rank), and
calculates the importance degree using the weight (para. 55: CPI may use a statistical approach to score issues based on patients' outcomes, such as imminent deterioration, which may lead to critical outcomes, such as ICU admission or death).
Claims 16-17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within claims 5-7 & 9-15. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: wherein the circuitry calculates the importance degree of the word element, while taking into account an appearance frequency of the word element, and number of times the candidate for the medical procedure according to the word element is presented & wherein the circuitry sets the weight so that the weight increases, as number of times the speaker attribute made a statement on the word element according to the presented candidate for the medical procedure increases.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Amara (US20230104655) teaches generating a clinical summary of a patient using artificial intelligence is provided. A patient data that includes unstructured data and structured data is collected from multiple computing devices. Natural language processing models determine clinical issues from the unstructured data. Active clinical issues are determined from the clinical issues. A knowledge graph generated using a relational language model determines treatments associated with the active clinical issues. Active diagnostic and treatment orders are determined from the structured data. Multiple summaries summarizing the active clinical issues, treatments, active diagnostic orders, and active treatment orders are determined using natural language generation models trained to summarize multiple tasks. Kano (US20220246300) teaches obtain text information representing each of a plurality of diagnosis/treatment records at a plurality of points in time, as diagnosis/treatment data related to a first patient. The processing circuitry is configured to perform a natural language processing process to extract a predetermined word from the text information, to classify each of the plurality of diagnosis/treatment records into at least one category in accordance with the extracted word, and to calculate breakdown information indicating frequency of appearance of one or more categories related to one or more diagnosis/treatment records in a predetermined period of time among the plurality of diagnosis/treatment records. The processing circuitry is configured to cause a display to display a display screen including a temporal transition and an accumulated total related to the frequency of appearance of the one or more categories on a basis of the calculated breakdown information. Ephrat (US20190034503) teaches to extracting unstructured text information, combining the unstructured text with text information stored in structured fields of an application (including graphical user interfaces), and preparing the combination of text information for utilization in several downstream processes. In particular, the extracted text information may be used to perform contextual analysis as an input to various decision support functions, including comparisons with related guidelines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights