DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on March 20, 2025.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 8-9 were previously canceled.
Claims 11-13 have been newly added.
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-6 and 10-13 are drawn to a device and claim 7 is drawn to a system and thus, are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for generating structured data from input data in a medical record, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following a set of rules or instructions).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
acquire medical ontology and input data entered in a remarks field of a medical record in a natural language;
generate analysis data of the acquired input data by […] dividing input data in the natural language into a plurality of words upon the input data;
generate structured data in which the acquired medical ontology is associated with the analysis data by associating each word, of the plurality of words, with a corresponding medical classification item using the acquired medical ontology;
generate confirmation data that expresses the generated structured data in the natural language by converting each word associated with a same medical classification item into the natural language; and
display the confirmation data including, as part of the confirmation data, a selectable additional candidate information display item,
receive selection of the displayed additional candidate information item by an operator, and in response to the selection, display […] at least one disease with which a patient may be afflicted and a corresponding at least one percentage likelihood that the patient is afflicted with the at least one disease,
divide a sentence included in the input data into multiple linguistic elements,
generate structured data by, for each of the multiple linguistic elements, extracting a related node from the medical ontology and acquiring the medical classification item associated with the extracted related node, and
generate the confirmation data by generating a natural language sentence using, for each of the acquired medical classification items, the related node belonging to the respective medical classification item.
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the following additional elements:
processing circuity
executing natural language processing;
a display
multiple input candidate display windows
in executing the natural language processing, the processing circuitry is further configured to
a storage medium configured to store a medical ontology (claim 7);
The processing circuitry, storage medium, natural language processing of input data into words and sentence into multiple linguistic elements, and display additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claims 1 and 7 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 7 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-6 and 10-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-13 do not recite additional elements other than those in their respective independent claims. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-6 and 10-13 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1 and 7 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claims 1 and 7. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combinations of:
Processing circuitry configured to: acquire a medical ontology and input data entered in a remarks field of a medical record in a natural language;
generate analysis data of the acquired input data by executing natural language processing of dividing input data in the natural language into a plurality of words upon the input data;
generate structured data in which the acquired medical ontology is associated with the analysis data by associating each word, of the plurality of words, with a corresponding medical classification item using the acquired medical ontology;
generate confirmation data that expresses the generated structured data in the natural language by converting each word associated with a same medical classification item into the natural language; and
control a display to display the confirmation data including, as part of the confirmation data, a selectable additional candidate information display item,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive selection of the displayed additional candidate information item by an operator, and in response to the selection, control the display to display multiple input candidate display windows, each input candidate display window indicating at least one disease with which a patient may be afflicted and a corresponding at least one percentage likelihood that the patient is afflicted with the at least one disease,
in executing the natural language processing, the processing circuitry is further configured to divide a sentence included in the input data into multiple linguistic elements,
the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the structured data by, for each of the multiple linguistic elements, extracting a related node from the medical ontology and acquiring the medical classification item associated with the extracted related node, and
the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the confirmation data by generating a natural language sentence using, for each of the acquired medical classification items, the related node belonging to the respective medical classification item.
The closest prior art Mankovich et al. (US 20140343925 A1) teaches acquiring a medical ontology and input data entered in a remarks field of a medical record in a natural language; generating analysis data of the acquired input data by executing natural language processing of dividing input data in the natural language into a plurality of words upon the input data; generating structured data in which the acquired medical ontology is associated with the analysis data; controlling a display to display the confirmation data including, as part of the confirmation data, a selectable additional candidate information display item; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive selection of the displayed additional candidate information item by an operator; in executing the natural language processing, the processing circuitry is further configured to divide a sentence included in the input data into multiple linguistic elements.
The closest prior art Riskin et al. (US 20140181128 A1) teaches generating structured data in which the acquired medical ontology is associated with the analysis data by associating each word, of the plurality of words, with a corresponding medical classification item using the acquired medical ontology.
The closest prior art Chatfield et al. (US 20130311201 A1) teaches generating confirmation data that expresses the generated structured data in the natural language by converting each word associated with a same medical classification item into the natural language.
The closest prior art Gotthardt et al. (US 20120130743 A1) teaches controlling the display to display multiple input candidate display windows, each input candidate display window indicating at least one disease with which a patient may be afflicted and a corresponding at least one percentage likelihood that the patient is afflicted with the at least one disease.
However, Mankovich, Riskin, Chatfield, and Gotthardt fail to teach either alone or in combination generating the structured data by, for each of the multiple linguistic elements, extracting a related node from the medical ontology and acquiring the medical classification item associated with the extracted related node, and generating the confirmation data by generating a natural language sentence using, for each of the acquired medical classification items, the related node belonging to the respective medical classification item.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding the 101 rejection, applicant argues that the 101 rejection does not take into consideration the steps in claim 1 as a whole and that the Examiner does not consider each and every one of the method steps as additional elements as in Example 42. As shown on page 4, the Office Action lists five steps that it believes are abstract ides, and then no longer ever considers those steps at all. This is contrary to the examination method followed by the USPTO in Example 42. In particular, in step 2A, prong 1, the USPTO merely states that "The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to access patients' medical records and receive updated patient information in real time from other users which is a method of managing interactions between people." Emphasis added. Applicant notes that the USPTO in Example 42 does not list individual steps as abstract, and then eliminate them from the claim from further analysis, unlike the approach taken in the Office Action. Thus, in step 2, prong 2, the USPTO considers each and every one of the method steps as "additional elements." In particular, the USPTO states that "[the claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user." Emphasis added. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim1 provides a specific improvement over prior systems, via its novel method of dividing input data in the natural language into a plurality of words, associating each word with a corresponding medical classification item using a medical ontology, and converting each word associated with a same medical classification item into the natural language sentence.
Inasmuch as the Examiner understands the intricacies of what the Applicant is arguing, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The aforementioned steps are part of the abstract idea and the additional elements are highlighted in the rejection above. MPEP 2106.04(d) states that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this; the Specification of Example 42 describes technical problem, i.e., a problem caused by the technology, the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information, that the claimed invention is solving thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Unlike Example 42, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem pertaining to sharing updated health information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format it was inputted. Instead, the Examiner determines, based on the current record, that claim 1 uses a processing circuit and natural language processing as a tool to translate data into corresponding medical classification items.
Applicant further argues: “Further, Applicant notes that both the -925 and`743 applications, cited in the rejection under 35 U,S.C. § 103, have been patented and thus not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In particular, the t925 application is the primary reference cited in the rejection of the claims under 35 U S.C. § 103. Further, the '925 application, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,348,813, includes for example Claim 12, which is directed to a text analysis method comprising (1) enabling a user to input a free text in a natural language; (2) processing at least a portion of the free text using natural language processing while it is being inputted, to obtain an explicit representation of semantics entailed by the free text;(3)enabling the user to input explicit information relating to the explicit representation of semantics; and wherein the user is provided with simultaneous access to both input a free text in a natural language and input explicit information relating to the explicit representation of semantics, wherein the user is provided with options to confirm or reject the explicit representation of the semantics, and wherein upon receipt of a rejection of the explicit representation of the semantics the user is provided with an alternative explicit representation. While not dispositive, it is informative that such a claim is patent eligible, while the present Claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully submits that both sets of claims involve natural language processing, and are similar in scope for § 101 purposes, and thus the present claims should also be allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that claims are not examined in a vacuum and will not comment on the prosecution of other applications. Further, the scope of the claims in the patented applications noted above are different from the claims of the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered and found to be persuasive. As such, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.3
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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687