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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 8/13/2025. Claims 1-18 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a continuation of PCT/JP2019/040832 filed on 10/17/2019. Receipt is NOT acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have Not been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/2025 does not follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The foreign references, international search report, English translation of the international search report, and non-patent literature (NPL) shown in the IDS has Not been received.
Accordingly, these documents that has been lined through have not been received and thus not been considered as to the merits.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of allowed Application No. 17/763777 (reference application, now Patent 12,419,565). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are directed to the same invention.
For reference, the following table matches the primary limitations of allowed claim 81(method) of application 17/763777, with the similar limitations of claim 1 (method) of the instant application (differences highlighted in bold type).
19/298520, instant application which is a continuation patent application 17/763777
17/763777, reference application, (now Patent 12,419,565), allowed claim
1. An information processing method comprising:
1. An information processing method comprising:
storing a model for obtaining prediction values of assessment in rehabilitation for a subject;
calculating, using the model, by one or more processors, a prediction value based on subject information including a first assessment value representing an assessment of the subject at a predetermined moment for each of a plurality of items set in FIM (Functional Independence Measure), the prediction value representing an assessment of the subject predicted after the predetermined moment;
outputting a display control signal for controlling display, on an information processing device operated by an assessor, of the prediction value for the assessor to consider in decision- making regarding whether to modify the prediction value;
in a case where an input from the assessor is received via the information processing device, obtaining, by the one or more processors, a correction value based on an input from the assessor provided via the information processing device, the correction value representing an assessment of the subject for the plurality of items;
recording, by the one or more processors, the correction value as a second assessment value representing an assessment of the subject for a predetermined item of the FIM; and
in a case where a difference between the prediction value and the correction value is equal to or more than a predetermined value, by the one or more processors, changing a number of learning data including a combination of the subject information and the second assessment value in accordance with an attribute of the assessor, and performing machine learning to correct the model by using the learning data to increase precision of calculating the prediction value; and
in a case where no input is received from the assessor via the information processing device, by the one or more processors, performing either one of. notifying an alert to a supervisor of the assessor via the information processing device or notifying an alert to the assessor via the information processing device before starting the rehabilitation of the subject after the predetermined moment.
storing a model for obtaining prediction values of assessment in rehabilitation for a subject;
calculating, using the model, by one or more processors, a prediction value based on subject information including a first assessment value representing an assessment of the subject at a predetermined moment for each of a plurality of items set in FIM (Functional Independence Measure), the prediction value representing an assessment of the subject predicted after the predetermined moment;
setting, by the one or more processors, the prediction value as a provisional assessment value representing a provisional assessment of the subject for a predetermined item of the FIM;
outputting a display control signal for controlling display, on a display device, of the prediction value in a correctable manner on an information processing device operated by an assessor for the assessor to consider in decision-making regarding whether to modify the prediction value;
in a case where an input from the assessor is received via the information processing device, obtaining, by the one or more processors, a correction value based on an input from the assessor provided via the information processing device, the correction value representing an assessment of the subject for the plurality of items;
recording, by the one or more processors, the correction value as a second assessment value representing an assessment of the subject for a predetermined item of the FIM; and
in a case where a difference between the prediction value and the correction value is equal to or more than a predetermined value, by the one or more processors, changing a number of learning data including a combination of the subject information and the second assessment value in accordance with an attribute of the assessor, and performing machine learning to correct the model by using the learning data to increase precision of calculating the prediction value; and
in a case where no input is received from the assessor via the information processing device, by the one or more processors, performing either one of: notifying an alert to a supervisor of the assessor via the display device or notifying an alert to the assessor via the display device before starting the rehabilitation of the subject after the predetermined moment.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented. Independent claim 7, 13 is similarly rejected.
Therefore, as discussed above, the scope of claim 1 (method) of the present application and allowed claim 1, (method) respectively of U.S. Application No. 17/763777 (now Patent 12,419,565) are practically identical.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the same method steps, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other invention.
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include “setting, by the one or more processors, the prediction value as a provisional assessment value representing a provisional assessment of the subject for a predetermined item of the FIM;”, claimed in this application as taught or suggested by claims 1, 6, 9 of patent application 17/763777 because instant application claims 1-18 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-9 in allowed application 17/763777. An approved Terminal Disclaimer is required.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 1-18 are NOT rejected under the Alice/Mayo 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s claim presented are deemed to be persuasive because the claims as amended integrate the abstract idea into practical application. That is, Examiner finds the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 (i.e., calculating a prediction vale, correction value).
Examiner further finds, under Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements, as the combination of elements, the claim as a whole, operates and integrates into a practical application of reciting a specific way of linking "training machine learning" features, and recite how the trained machine learning model effecting the correction/prediction by dynamically correcting a prediction value for each item of the FIM of a patient as learning data to modify a model for calculating a prediction value to overcome Alice 101 rejection. As such, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This statement is simply made to inform the record that the claims were considered under the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Prior art Rejection
The Examiner notes that the previously applied reference of Sato et al. (US 2021/0217509), Otsuki et al. (US 2020/0411194), was directed towards the entirety of the claimed subject matter and was the best reference known to one of ordinary skill in the art to address the instant claims as well as the additional references of Chang et al. (US 2019/0096513), Desjardins et al. (US 2019/0236482),
Takamatsu et al (US 2022/0230096, teaches improving prediction accuracy of a prediction model), Rapaka et al. (US 2018/0315182, Rapid assessment and outcome analysis for medical patients), Daba et al. (US 2020/0411194, Rehabilitation Support System…), and
NPL1--Y. . -J. Chang, H. . -H. Liu and T. . -Y. Wang, "Mobile social networks as quality of life technology for people with severe mental illness," in IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 34-40, June 2009, doi: 10.1109/MWC.2009.5109462. (Year: 2019)
All failed to teach the recited claimed features.
Allowable Subject Matter
As to the prior art rejections, in interpreting the claims, in light of the specification, upon further search and consideration, and for the reasons presented by the claims, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. It is found that claim 1-18 is allowable subject to outstanding double patenting rejections.
However, independent claims 1, 7, 13 and their dependency are rejected under double patenting rejection above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and Not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chang et al. (US 20190096513), teaches assessing a patient, in particular, the measurement of patient outcomes in a rehabilitation setting.
ESHELMAN et al. (US 2019/0139631), teaches estimation and use of clinician assessment of patient acuity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights