DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This communication is in response to the amendment received on 03/03/2026. Claims 1-16 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, claims 1, 8 and 14 recite “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding, each interactive panel displaying the two or more alternative data items from its associated separate expansion table, each alternative data item displayed in the interactive panels being a selective text string associated with the medical finding displayed in the graphical user interface and to a standardized external medical code, wherein a combination of selections from the plurality of interactive panels is used by the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed”.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The recitation of “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding,”, “wherein a combination of selections from the plurality of interactive panels is used by the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed” within claims 1, 8 and 16 appears to constitute new matter. In particular, Applicant does not point to, nor was the Examiner able to find, any support for these features within the specification as originally filed. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-16 incorporate the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, through dependency, and are also rejected.
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 1-16 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 1-7 are drawn to a method for coding an aspect of a patient encounter performed by an electronic computing system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 8-13 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 14-16 are drawn to a non-transitory medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 14 recite “receiving a medical finding identifying medical information related to a patient…; identifying an internal medical code of an internal medical terminology that relates to the medical finding…; retrieving two or more alternative data items from an expansion table associated with the internal medical code…; in response to selecting a selectable expansion table, selecting a standardized external medical code corresponding to the medical finding…”. These limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. This is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processing unit and memory does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims also recite an abstract ides of certain methods of organizing human activity, such as, claim 6 recites “retrieving one or more secondary data items from a second expansion table associated with the internal medical code”, claim 10 recites “receive a medical finding identifying medical information related to a patient,...; identify an internal medical code of the first terminology that relates to the medical finding; retrieve two or more alternative data items from an expansion table associated with the internal medical code,…; and in response to selecting one of the two or more alternative data items, selecting a code from the second terminology that identifies the medical finding in the second terminology based at least in part on the selected one of the two or more alternative data items”. These limitations correspond to certain methods of human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 recite “generating a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface displaying the medical finding input by the user and a plurality of interactive panels, each interactive panel associated with a separate expansion table, each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding, each interactive panel displaying the two or more alternative data items from its associated separate expansion table, each alternative data item displayed in the interactive panels being a selective text string associated with the medical finding displayed in the graphical user interface and to a standardized external medical code, wherein a combination of selections from the plurality of interactive panels is used by the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed”. The limitations of “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding” and “dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items” correspond to mathematical relationships, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the abstract ideas.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 are ultimately dependent from Claims 1, 8, 14 and include all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 14. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 recites the same abstract idea. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 describes further limitations regarding the basis for identifying an internal medical code of an internal medical terminology. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, 14, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “a processing unit”, “memory”, “a database”, “a computing device”, “a touch screen device”, “touch screen device configured to enable the caregiver to supply the one or more alternative data items touching the touch screen device”, “a computer readable medium”, “using a processing unit to receive a medical finding../identify an internal code…/retrieve data items from memory…”, which are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement an abstract idea in a particular technological environment (such as, receiving medical data, identifying an internal medical code by a processing unit) and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
The processing device described in the current specification as: “The computing device 112 includes, in some embodiments, at least one processing device 120, such as a central processing unit (CPU). A variety of processing devices are available from a variety of manufacturers, for example, Intel or Advanced Micro Devices. In this example, the computing device 112 also includes a system memory 122, and a system bus 124 that couples various system components including the system memory 122 to the processing device 120. The system bus 124 is one of any number of types of bus structures including a memory bus, or memory controller; a peripheral bus; and a local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures.” In par. 25. Therefore, the claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical coding process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims also recite “generating a graphical user interface,…displaying the medical finding input by the user,…”, “generating a second graphical user interface,…displaying the standardized external medical code to the caregiver”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)), which does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing unit to perform receiving data and identifying internal codes steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The processing device described in the current specification as a generic computer component and using a generic processor to identify internal medical terminology that relates to the medical finding. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The current specification describes “identifying medical codes” as:
“…the medical coding system 102 includes a plurality of engines that, when executed by the processor, perform one or more operations of the application program 138. The engines include a user interface engine 170 and an intelligent prompting engine 172. The intelligent prompting engine 172 includes an internal terminology prompting engine 176 and an internal-to-external prompting engine 174. In other embodiments, the plurality of engines could be stored at any other location in the memory 122, such as the program modules 140 (shown in FIG. 2).” In par. 38,
“…the intelligent prompting engine 172 functions in two main ways. First, the intelligent prompting engine 172 utilizes the internal terminology prompting engine 176 to prompt the caregiver with a list of findings related to an inputted medical condition, or alternatively, prompt the caregiver with a list of medical conditions related to a list of inputted symptoms…” in par. 41, and
“…Examples of how the system 102 intelligently prompts the caregiver based on the knowledge base 178 are shown in the issued patent entitled, INTELLIGENT PROMPTING, U.S. Patent No. 5,823,949, issued on October 20, issued patent entitled, INTELLIGENT PROMPTING, U.S. Patent No. 5,823,949, issued on October 20,1998, by Peter S. Goltra, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein…” in par. 43.
Therefore, the intelligent prompting is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field and claims are directed to mere instruction to apply an exception. Claims 1-16 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Arguments about USC 112(a), first paragraph rejection:
Applicant argues that the specification describes “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding, each interactive panel displaying the two or more alternative data items from its associated separate expansion table, each alternative data item displayed in the interactive panels being a selective text string associated with the medical finding displayed in the graphical user interface and to a standardized external medical code, wherein a combination of selections from the plurality of interactive panels is used by the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed”.
In response, Examiner submits that there is no indication or description in the current specification about “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding,”, “wherein a combination of selections from the plurality of interactive panels is used by the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed”.
Applicant argues that [0065], [0070] and Fig. 7 describes these features, however, [0065] recites “FIG. 7 is a diagram 260 illustrating examples of operations 240-246 of the method 230 (discussed in FIG. 6). The diagram 260 includes operations 262, includes operations 262,270, includes operations 262, 270,284, and 296. The operation 262 utilizes an exemplary internal medical terminology table 264. The operation 270 utilizes an exemplary expansion table 272. The operation 284 utilizes a second exemplary expansion table 286. The operation 296 utilizes an exemplary external standard terminology table 298. The exemplary internal medical terminology table 264 includes an internal code 266 and an internal description 268. The exemplary expansion table 272 includes rows 274, includes rows 274,276, and 278. Row 276 includes an identifier 280 and an expansion table description 282. The second exemplary expansion table 285 includes rows 288 and 290. Row 288 includes an identifier 292 and an expansion table description 294. The exemplary external standard terminology table 298 includes an external description 300 and an external medical code 302.” and [0070] recites “If, in the example embodiment, the user selection "initial encounter," the system 102 again determines whether a further expansion table exists for the description. If, in the example embodiment, the system 102 determines that no further expansion table exists, the system 102 then does a one-to-one mapping of the description 300 to the external code 302. In some embodiments, this is accomplished by the internal-to-external prompting engine 174. Upon determining that no expansion table exists, the internal-to-external prompting engine 174 searches the external standard terminology 180 for the description, "open wound of the left shoulder initial encounter," and retrieves the corresponding external code 302. “.
There is no recitation of “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding”, “the electronic computing system to dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed”.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Arguments about USC 101 rejection:
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 does not recite a mental process. Rather, it recites a specific computing architecture that includes, inter alia: retrieving alternative data items from separate expansion tables identified by an internal medical code; dynamically generating a graphical user interface having a plurality of interactive panels; configuring each panel to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimensional attribute of the medical finding (e.g., encounter type or body location); dynamically constructing a final standardized external medical code; and doing so without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items, thereby reducing memory storage requirements and increasing retrieval processing speed.
In response, Examiner submits that claim limitations of “receiving a medical finding identifying medical information related to a patient…; identifying an internal medical code of an internal medical terminology that relates to the medical finding…; retrieving two or more alternative data items from an expansion table associated with the internal medical code…; in response to selecting a selectable expansion table, selecting a standardized external medical code corresponding to the medical finding…”. are found to be corresponding to certain methods of organizing human activity (a method of managing interactions between people), not “mental processes”.
Examiner also submits that the computing architecture (“a processing unit”, “memory”, “a database”, “a computing device”, “a touch screen device”, “touch screen device configured to enable the caregiver to supply the one or more alternative data items touching the touch screen device”, “a computer readable medium”, “using a processing unit to receive a medical finding../identify an internal code…/retrieve data items from memory…”) are not part of the abstract idea, but correspond to additional elements, which are hardware and software elements (see the rejection above).
Applicant argues that pending claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality and data processing efficiency. Applicant argues that the prior art approach requires exponentially large lookup tables to handle combination of multiple attributes of a medical finding, which results in increased storage requirements and slower retrieval performance.
In response, Examiner submits that the features of “using a processing unit to receive a medical finding../identify an internal code…/retrieve data items from memory…”, are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement an abstract idea in a particular technological environment (such as, receiving medical data, identifying an internal medical code by a processing unit) and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Examiner submits that the limitations of “each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding” and “dynamically construct a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items” correspond to mathematical relationships, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the abstract ideas. Also, it’s not clear in the current specification how the dynamically constructing a final standardized external medical code without requiring storage of a complete mapping table containing all possible combinations of alternative data items is being accomplished. The current specification describes an intelligent prompting in order to “identifying medical codes”, which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field and claims are directed to mere instruction to apply an exception (see the rejection above).
Applicant argues that claims provide dynamic categorical-refinement based code assembly, which is not directed to merely “apply it”, and the claims are directed to improving data storage and retrieval. Applicant also argues that the architectural structure recited in the claims cannot be amount to merely “apply it”
In response, Examiner submits that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., eliminating the need for complete combinational mapping tables, provide dynamic categorical refinement-based code assembly and reconfigure how medical code data structures are organized and retrieved) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner also submits that “using a processing unit to receive a medical finding../identify an internal code…/retrieve data items from memory…”, which are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement an abstract idea in a particular technological environment (such as, receiving medical data, identifying an internal medical code by a processing unit) and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical coding process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the recites graphical user interface is not an insignificant extra-solution activity, the recited GUI panels are dynamically generated based on respective expansion tables, correspond to categorical refinements of the medical finding, retrieve only subsets corresponding to those refinements, and enable combinatorial code construction without storing all possible combinations.
In response, Examiner submits that claims recite “generating a graphical user interface,…displaying the medical finding input by the user,…”, “generating a second graphical user interface,…displaying the standardized external medical code to the caregiver”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. The limitations of “the graphical user interface displaying the medical finding input by the user and a plurality of interactive panels, each interactive panel associated with a separate expansion table, each panel being dynamically generated based on its respective expansion table stored in memory and configured to retrieve only a subset of data items corresponding to a dimension of the finding,…” do not corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activities, but are directed to an abstract idea of “mathematical concepts”, since they recite mathematical relationships.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights