DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 14 January 2026 for application 17/365,866 filed 01 July 2021.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-11, 14-15, 20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/590,417, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the specification of the prior-filed application does not provide adequate support for at least “... generate at least a query using the at least a user input; and generate the at least a symptom datum as a function of the at least a query; ... assign weights, as a function of the at least a symptom datum, to the correlated data; identify root causes as a function of the assigned weights ...” in claims 1, 11. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application, and the priority date given to the instant application is the effective filing date of 01 July 2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of extract at least a symptom datum from the user input, wherein the extraction of the at least a symptom datum comprises ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate at least a query using the user input … configured to extract one or more words from the user input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of …map the user input to the at least a query, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate the at least a symptom datum as a function of the at least a query, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of assign weights, as a function of the at least a symptom datum, to the correlated data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identify root causes as a function of the assigned weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of display the root causes to a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, computing device, user client device, parsing module. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – language processing model, machine learning process. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites train a machine learning process with an expert input training set wherein the expert input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying root causes and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receive a user input from a user client device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, computing device, user client device, parsing module amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
language processing model, machine learning process amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the system of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the extracting the symptom datum further comprises using natural language processing.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the extracting the at least a symptom datum further comprises using natural language processing which is simply additional information regarding the extraction, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – natural language processing. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
natural language processing amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the extraction do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of extract prognostic labels from the at least a symptom datum, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of correlate prognostic labels to the expert input training set ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... as a function of the machine learning process which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of assign weights to the prognostic data correlated to causal link data as a function of the prognostic labels, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of identify a causal link as a function of the assigned weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the system of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of transmit the causal link to an advisor client device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – advisor client device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites transmit the causal link to an advisor client device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
advisor client device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the system of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the user input is a voice input.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the user input and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the user input do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of ... identify root causes as a function of the assigned weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the computing device is configured to use neural networks ... which is simply applying neural networks recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural networks. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying neural networks amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
neural networks amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a system with a computing device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for identifying a root cause.
The limitation of correlate the at least a symptom datum to the root causes ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... as a function of the machine learning process which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of extracting ... a symptom datum from the user input wherein extracting the symptom datum comprises ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating at least a query using the user input … configured to extract one or more words from the user input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of … map the user input to the at least a query, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating the symptom datum as a function of the at least a query, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of assigning weights ... to the correlated data as a function of the symptom datum, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying ... root causes as a function of the assigned weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of displaying ... the root causes to a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computing device, user client device, parsing module, expert knowledge database. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – language processing model, machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training ... a machine learning model with an expert input training set from an expert knowledge database wherein the expert input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of identifying root causes and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receiving ... a user input from a user client device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computing device, user client device, parsing module, expert knowledge database amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
language processing model, machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the method of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the extracting the symptom datum further comprises using natural language processing.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the extracting the symptom datum further comprises using natural language processing which is simply additional information regarding the extraction, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – natural language processing. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
natural language processing amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the extraction do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of extracting ... prognostic labels from the symptom datum, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of correlating ... prognostic labels to the expert input training set ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... as a function of the machine learning model which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of ... assigning weights to the prognostic data correlated to the causal link data as a function of the prognostic labels, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of ... identifying a causal link as a function of the assigned weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the method of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of ... transmitting the causal link to an advisor client device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – advisor client device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites ... transmitting the causal link to an advisor client device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
advisor client device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the method of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the user input is a voice input.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the user input and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the user input do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim method carries out the 19 of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein identifying ... root causes as a function of the assigned weights further comprises using neural networks.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein identifying ... root causes as a function of the assigned weights further comprises using neural networks which is simply additional information regarding the identifying root causes, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural networks. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
neural networks amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the identifying root causes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of identifying a root cause.
The limitation of ... correlating the symptom datum to the root causes ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... as a function of the machine learning model which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conward et al. (US 2024/0079145 A1 – Systems and Methods for Deriving Health Indicators from User-Generated Content, hereinafter referred to as “Conward”) in view of Rajan et al. (US 2018/0011972 A1 - Method and System to Process Electronic Medical Records for Predicting Health Conditions of Patients, hereinafter referred to as "Rajan").
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Conward teaches a system for identifying a root cause (Conward, [0015] – teaches a machine learning system for identifying root causes based on user generated health data), the system comprising a computing device (Conward, [0088] – teaches a computing system), wherein the computing device is designed and configured to:
receive a user input from a user client device (Conward, [0034] – teaches user generated content from a user device; see also Conward, [0032]);
extract at least a symptom datum from the user input (Conward, [0064] – teaches using NLP to extract symptoms from the user generated data), wherein the extraction of the at least a symptom datum comprises;
generate at least a query using the user input, using a parsing module, wherein the parsing module is configures to extract one or more words from the user input, wherein the parsing module further comprises a language processing model configured to map the user input to the at least one query (Conward, [0064] – teaches using sentiment analysis, word segmentation or terminology extraction [query] to identify words or phrases that are associated with particular symptoms and evaluate a mental state based on sentiment of written text in combination with specific words or phrases); and
generate the at least a symptom datum as a function of the at least a query, using the language processing model (Conward, [0064] – teaches using sentiment analysis, word segmentation or terminology extraction [query] to identify words or phrases that are associated with particular symptoms and evaluate a mental state based on sentiment of written text in combination with specific words or phrases);
train a machine learning process with an … input training set wherein the … input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data (Conward, [0041]-[0043] – teaches training a machine learning model to correlate prognostic data to causal link data);
assign weights, as a function of the at least a symptom datum, to the correlated data (Conward, [0039]-[0040] – teaches adjusting weights as part of training which assigns weights to the correlated data);
identify root causes as a function of the assigned weights (Conward, [0039] – teaches using the trained machine learning model to identify root causes); and
display the root causes to a user (Conward, [0080] – teaches displaying the root cause to the user).
While Conward teaches training the machine learning model to correlate prognostic data to causal link data, Conward does not explicitly teach that the training data is expert data.
Rajan teaches
train a machine learning process with an expert input training set (Rajan, [0044] – teaches the application server using a program [prognostic chaining module] for clustering the historical medical records of the one or more second patients [expert input dataset] and training a ML model using the given clusters) wherein the expert input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data (Rajan, [0040] – teaches a database server [expert knowledge database] that stores historical medical records of second patients [expert input dataset] where the medical records include complications of a hospital stay, clinical notes (such as nursing notes, investigative reports, medication and allergy reports, lab test results and the like), measurement of vitals, and personal data; Rajan, [0041] – teaches the application server receiving the historical medical records of the one or more second patients [expert input dataset] from the database server [expert knowledge database]; see also Rajan, [0021]-[0023] – discusses various types of medical records which include health conditions and planned treatments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conward with the teachings of Rajan in order to reduce risk improve health of patients in the field of root cause analysis of patients using machine learning (Rajan, [0147] – “The disclosed embodiments encompass numerous advantages. The method discloses a processing of electronic medical records for predicting a health condition of the first patient. The method discloses clustering the datasets related to one or more patients to predict the health condition of the first patient by minimum weight and maximum match technique. Further, the disclosed method may be utilized in the healthcare industry to predict the health of the patients. Based on at least the prediction of the health condition, precautionary and necessary steps may be taken to reduce the risk of deaths in the patients. The disclosed classification method may further be utilized in the area of risk assessment, fraud detection and analysis of complex data.”).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the extracting the at least a symptom datum further comprises using natural language processing (Conward, [0064] – teaches using NLP to extract symptoms from the user generated data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to extract prognostic labels from the at least a symptom datum (Conward, [0043] – teaches extracting prognostic labels from symptom data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to correlate prognostic labels to the expert input training set as a function of the machine learning process (Conward, [0043] – teaches correlated prognostic labels to clinician’s notes [expert input training data] using machine learning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 4 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device if further configured to assign weights to the prognostic data correlated to causal link data as a function of the prognostic labels (Conward, [0039]-[0040] – teaches adjusting weights as part of training which assigns weights to the correlated data; Conward, [0043] – teaches training using the training dataset and prognostic labels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to identify a causal link as a function of the assigned weights (Conward, [0039] – teaches using the trained machine learning model to identify root causes; Conward, [0039]-[0040] – teaches adjusting weights as part of training which assigns weights to the correlated data; Conward, [0041]-[0043] – teaches training a machine learning model to correlate prognostic data to causal link data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 6 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to transmit the causal link to an advisor client device (Conward, [0068] - teaches displaying data to clinician's device; Conward, [0080] – teaches displaying the root cause to the user; see also Conward, [0031], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the user input is a voice input (Conward, [0016] – teaches that that user input include audio data, e.g., patient’s voice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to use neural networks to identify root causes as a function of the assigned weights (Conward, [0039] – teaches adjusting weights of DNNs to identify root causes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Conward in view of Rajan teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1 as noted above. Conward further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to correlate the at least a symptom datum to the root causes as a function of the machine learning process (Conward, [0039] – teaches using the trained machine learning model to identify root causes given symptom data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Conward and Rajan for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Conward teaches a method of identifying a root cause (Conward, [0015] – teaches a machine learning system for identifying root causes based on user generated health data), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (Conward, [0088] – teaches a computing system), a user input from a user client device (ward, [0034] – teaches user generated content from a user device; see also Conward, [0032]);
extracting, by the computing device, a symptom datum from the user input (Conward, [0064] – teaches using NLP to extract symptoms from the user generated data) wherein extracting the symptom datum comprises:
generating at least a query using the user input, using a parsing module, wherein the parsing module is configured to extract one or more words from the user input, wherein the parsing module further comprises a language processing model configured to map the user input to the at least a query (Conward, [0064] – teaches using sentiment analysis, word segmentation or terminology extraction [query] to identify words or phrases that are associated with particular symptoms and evaluate a mental state based on sentiment of written text in combination with specific words or phrases); and
generating the symptom datum as a function of the at least a query, using the language processing model (Conward, [0064] – teaches using sentiment analysis, word segmentation or terminology extraction [query] to identify words or phrases that are associated with particular symptoms and evaluate a mental state based on sentiment of written text in combination with specific words or phrases);
training, by the computing device, a machine learning model with an … input training set … wherein the … input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data (Conward, [0041]-[0043] – teaches training a machine learning model to correlate prognostic data to causal link data);
assigning weights, by the computing device, to the correlated data as a function of the symptom datum (Conward, [0039]-[0040] – teaches adjusting weights as part of training which assigns weights to the correlated data);
identifying, by the computing device, root causes as a function of the assigned weights (Conward, [0039] – teaches using the trained machine learning model to identify root causes); and
displaying, by the computer device, the root causes to a user (Conward, [0080] – teaches displaying the root cause to the user).
While Conward teaches training the machine learning model to correlate prognostic data to causal link data, Conward does not explicitly teach that the training data is expert data.
Rajan teaches
training, by the computing device, a machine learning model (Rajan, [0044] – teaches the application server using a program [prognostic chaining module] for clustering the historical medical records of the one or more second patients [expert input dataset] and training a ML model using the given clusters) with an expert input training set from an expert knowledge database wherein the expert input training set further comprises prognostic data correlated to causal link data (Rajan, [0040] – teaches a database server [expert knowledge database] that stores historical medical records of second patients [expert input dataset] where the medical records include complications of a hospital stay, clinical notes (such as nursing notes, investigative reports, medication and allergy reports, lab test results and the like), measurement of vitals, and personal data; Rajan, [0041] – teaches the application server receiving the historical medical records of the one or more second patients [expert input dataset] from the database server [expert knowledge database]; see also Rajan, [0021]-[0023] – discusses various types of medical records which include health conditions and planned treatments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conward with the teachings of Rajan in order to reduce risk improve health of patients in the field of root cause analysis of patients using machine learning (Rajan, [0147] – “The disclosed embodiments encompass numerous advantages. The method discloses a processing of electronic medical records for predicting a health condition of the first patient. The method discloses clustering the datasets related to one or more patients to predict the health condition of the first patient by minimum weight and maximum match technique. Further, the disclosed method may be utilized in the healthcare industry to predict the health of the patients. Based on at least the prediction of the health condition, precautionary and necessary steps may be taken to reduce the risk of deaths in the patients. The disclosed classification method may further be utilized in the area of risk assessment, fraud detection and analysis of complex data.”).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Conward in view of Rajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125