DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 07 April 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
Independent claim 1, representative of claims 17, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites invention directed generating log files of patient data by standardizing the received patient data record and making the patient data available when a request to access patient data is received. Subsequent to receiving patient data of a patient comprising free-text data, received patient data is processed, and data elements are extracted. Based in part on the user-specific data entry patterns a probability of assignment is calculated and a data category and associated pre-determined data representation based on a highest calculated probability is selected. Mapped structured data id formed based on the data categories and identified user-specific data entry habits. For each mapped data element, generates a confidence score indicating a likelihood of a correct mapping is generated based at least in part on a degree of match to the user-specific data entry patterns; A user is presented with the structured data fields with associated confidence-score, and is enabled to manually confirm, modify or override one of more structured data fields, subsequent to which data record of the patient is populated with mapped structured data based on the pre-determined data representations and the user-validated data and stored which will be made available to be queried. When a query is received for a medical record, queried medical records is retrieved and provided as a response, which will be used for selecting a particular treatment for administering to the patient, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity of standardizing received medical record by considering habits of the person who created the medical record of a patient in free-text form, storing it and making is accessible by medical professional for selecting a particular treatment for administering to the patient.
The independent claims further recite the additional functional element of
processing the patient data using a learning system with Artificial Intelligence (Al)- assisted clinical extraction tool, executing a trained language extraction machine learning model, wherein the trained language extraction machine learning model is updated using both data that reflects medical language semantics, and analysis of user-specific data entry patterns comprising a data entry sequence, as provided to a medical application in prior patient data entries by that user; adapting future probability calculations and mapping logic in response to new user interaction with the system, thereby refining the user-specific model. Not only do these features fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but it can also reasonably be seen as the conventional application of well-known machine learning concepts to build and train a model to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Represented claim 17, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. This claim add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory to perform the method addressed above (claim 1).
The processor and database are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 16 and 18 – 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea with details regarding results that the trained language model can provide, details regarding the data, data elements, identifying that data record are converted into a standardized representation, how the data fields of the patient data record will be populated, allowing user (e.g., a medical professional, an abstractor) to manually populate the data record or optionally, populate the data fields with pre-determined data representations (e.g., default values), defining that the quality of the user’s work is determined, and report is provided, defining what medical application comprises. Defining where the patient data can be received from, defining that the language extraction machine learning model comprises a neural network, and defining that the populated data records enables reporting to a regional and/or national data records of patients. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending amended claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention recite elements which integrate a practical application and recites “significantly more” than the alleged abstract idea is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the pending claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 and have been responded to in the Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach the added limitations in the claimed invention is acknowledged and accepted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boone et al. US Publication 2004/0243545 teaches system and method for generating, manipulating, summarizing, storing, reusing, and searching electronic medical records. Data extraction of relevant medical data from the input text may optionally be facilitated by the structured format of the medical records. The extracted medical data is normalized to allow easier searching.
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights