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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/24/2022 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/24/2022 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pattern” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is dependent on claim 13.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identifying, in the plurality of strings of characters, indicia comprising a phrase, a predicate, a keyword, a subject, an object, a cardinal, a number, a concept, or some combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on user information/report, identifies certain words, subjects, etc., such as symptom, prescription, diagnosis …
The limitation of “comparing the indicia to a knowledge graph representing known health related information to generate a possible health related information pertaining to the patient”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user compares two things to determine the similarity, such as comparing the identified symptoms from the user report to a knowledge base to identify similar symptoms to determine a diagnosis.
The limitation of “identifying, using a logical structure, a structural similarity of the possible health related information and a known predicate in the logical structure”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the similarity by comparing the certain string of characters/phrases/predicates such as has a symptom of, taking prescription drugs … between the user report and a knowledge base.
The limitation of “generating, by the artificial intelligence engine, cognified data based on the structural similarity”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the artificial intelligence engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generates a result, statement or health summary indicating a diagnosis of a patient based on the identified similarities (symptoms, treatment, or drugs taking, etc.,).
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “receiving, at an artificial intelligence engine, a corpus of data for a patient”. This additional element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data receiving, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “generating, by the artificial intelligence engine, …” 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.
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving, at an artificial intelligence engine, a corpus of data for a patient” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data receiving and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “generating, by the artificial intelligence engine, …” 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generating the knowledge graph using the known health related information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generates a graph with nodes and edges connecting the nodes.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “wherein the knowledge graph represents knowledge of a disease” and “the knowledge graph comprises a plurality of concepts pertaining to the disease obtained from the known health related information, and the knowledge graph comprises relationships between the plurality of concepts”. These additional limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “wherein the knowledge graph represents knowledge of a disease” and “the knowledge graph comprises a plurality of concepts pertaining to the disease obtained from the known health related information, and the knowledge graph comprises relationships between the plurality of concepts” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “the cognified data comprises a health related summary of the possible health related information”. This additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the cognified data comprises a health related summary of the possible health related information” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generating at least one new string of characters representing a statement pertaining to the possible health related information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user notifies the patient with a note/result that indicating the patient is diagnosis with diabetes based on the sugar level or vision loss.
The limitation of “including the at least one new string of characters in the health related summary of the possible health related information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user adding the result/note into the patient medical record/file.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “wherein the statement describes an effect that results from the possible health related information”. This additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “wherein the statement describes an effect that results from the possible health related information” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “codifying evidence based health related guidelines pertaining to a disease to generate the logical structure”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “codifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on the knowledge base or fact, generating a result regarding a diagnosis of the patient (if the patient has the symptoms of … and sugar level is high, then the patient is diagnosed with a certain disease).
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identifying at least one piece of information missing in the corpus of data for the patient using the cognified data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines that a patient with a certain disease should go see the Doctor every 3 months, and to notify the patient if the patient has not seen the Doctor for a while.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “wherein the at least one piece of information pertains to a treatment gap, a risk gap, a quality of care gap, or some combination thereof” and “wherein the notification instructs entry of the at least one piece of information”. These additional limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “causing a notification to be presented on a computing device of a healthcare personnel” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “wherein the at least one piece of information pertains to a treatment gap, a risk gap, a quality of care gap, or some combination thereof” and “wherein the notification instructs entry of the at least one piece of information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “causing a notification to be presented on a computing device of a healthcare personnel amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identifying, based on the structural similarity of the indicia and the known predicate in the logical structure, a treatment pattern, a referral pattern, a quality of care pattern, a risk adjustment pattern, or some combination thereof in the corpus of data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifies certain features in the knowledge base/graph.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “wherein using the logical structure to identify the structural similarity of the indicia and the known predicate in the logical structure further comprises …”. This additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “wherein using the logical structure to identify the structural similarity of the indicia and the known predicate in the logical structure further comprises …” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “receiving feedback pertaining to whether the cognified data is accurate”. This additional element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data receiving, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “updating the artificial intelligence engine based on the feedback” 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.
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving feedback pertaining to whether the cognified data is accurate” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data receiving and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional element of “updating the artificial intelligence engine based on the feedback” 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identify, in the plurality of strings of characters, indicia comprising a phrase, a predicate, a keyword, a cardinal, a number, a concept, or some combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on user information/report, identifies certain words, subjects, etc., such as symptom, prescription, diagnosis …
The limitation of “compare the indicia to a knowledge graph representing known health related information to generate a possible health related information pertaining to the patient”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user compares two things to determine the similarity, such as comparing the identified symptoms from the user report to a knowledge base to identify similar symptoms to determine a diagnosis.
The limitation of “identify, using a logical structure, a structural similarity of the indicia and a known predicate in the logical structure”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the similarity by comparing the certain string of characters/phrases/predicates such as has a symptom of, taking prescription drugs … between the user report and a knowledge base.
The limitation of “generate cognified data based on the similarity and the possible health related information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the artificial intelligence engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generates a result, statement or health summary indicating a diagnosis of a patient based on the identified similarities (symptoms, treatment, or drugs taking, etc.,).
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a processing device and an artificial intelligence engine”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “receive a corpus of data for a patient”. This additional element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data receiving, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a processing device and an artificial intelligence engine” to perform the generic computer functions amount 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 additional elements of “receive a corpus of data for a patient” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data receiving and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 2, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 12 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 3, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 13 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 4, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 14 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 5, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 15 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 6, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 16 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 7, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 17 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 8, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 18 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 9, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identify, in the plurality of strings of characters, indicia comprising a phrase, a predicate, a keyword, a cardinal, a number, a concept, or some combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on user information/report, identifies certain words, subjects, etc., such as symptom, prescription, diagnosis …
The limitation of “compare the indicia to a knowledge graph representing known health related information to generate a possible health related information pertaining to the patient”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “compare” in the context of this claim encompasses the user compares two things to determine the similarity, such as comparing the identified symptoms from the user report to a knowledge base to identify similar symptoms to determine a diagnosis.
The limitation of “identify, using a logical structure, a structural similarity of the indicia and a known predicate in the logical structure”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the similarity by comparing the certain string of characters/phrases/predicates such as has a symptom of, taking prescription drugs … between the user report and a knowledge base.
The limitation of “generate, by the artificial intelligence engine, cognified data based on the similarity and the possible health related information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the artificial intelligence engine” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generates a result, statement or health summary indicating a diagnosis of a patient based on the identified similarities (symptoms, treatment, or drugs taking, etc.,).
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A system, a memory device, a processing device and an artificial intelligence engine”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “receive, at an artificial intelligence engine, a corpus of data for a patient”. This additional element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data receiving, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system, a memory device, a processing device and an artificial intelligence engine” to perform the generic computer functions amount 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 additional elements of “receive, at an artificial intelligence engine, a corpus of data for a patient” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data receiving and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 9, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datla et al. (US Pub. 2019/0252074 – Applicant provided reference in the IDS) in view of De La Torre et al. (US Patent 11,195,103).
As per claim 1, Datla teaches a method comprising [paragraph 0001, “methods and systems to provide a clinical diagnosis of a patient's symptoms based on a corpus of medical knowledge”]:
receiving, at an artificial intelligence engine, a corpus of data for a patient, wherein the corpus of data includes a plurality of strings of characters [paragraph 0028, “The system receives natural language input from a medical professional and processes the input using a natural language processing engine to extract the keywords related to symptoms, such as signs, lab results, procedures and demographic information”; paragraph 0050, “a clinician, medical professional, or patient provides information to the automated system via a user interface. The information is provided in natural language … The question may be received from any user interface that allows information to be received, such as a microphone or text input”; Examiner interprets “natural language input comprising text input” as input that includes a plurality of strings of characters];
identifying, in the plurality of strings of characters, indicia comprising a phrase, a predicate, a keyword, a subject, an object, a cardinal, a number, a concept, or some combination thereof [paragraph 0028, “The system receives natural language input from a medical professional and processes the input using a natural language processing engine to extract the keywords related to symptoms, such as signs, lab results, procedures and demographic information”; paragraph 0065, “the system receives a patient complaint, test result, or other clinician information, typically as natural language input … A natural language processing engine 314 receives the input and processes it to extract one or more patient symptoms 316 and one or more demographic parameters 318 for the patient, such as by identifying keywords”];
comparing the indicia to a knowledge graph representing known health related information to generate a possible health related information pertaining to the patient [paragraph 0031, “the knowledge graph 310 is a tree-like structure with a plurality of nodes connected by one or more edges. Each root node of the graph is a symptom, and the remaining nodes are conditions, diagnoses, tests, procedures, medications, or other clinical concepts. An edge is a relationship between two nodes. For example, a symptom of a fever will be connected by edges to hundreds of other nodes, as a fever is a symptom of many patient scenarios”; Fig. 4, paragraphs 0074-0076, “method for automated clinical diagnosis. According to an embodiment, information is received via a natural language input from a patient or clinician, and the information is utilized to query a knowledge graph to generate a diagnosis … information is received via a natural language input from a patient or clinician … System 410 generates text that is provided to a natural language processing engine 314, which processes the generated text to extract at least one patient symptom from the received information and at least one demographic parameter for the patient from the received information. For example, the natural language processing engine may extract keywords related to symptoms, such as lab results, procedures, and/or demographic information … the extracted one or more patient symptoms and the extracted one or more pieces of demographic information are utilized to query the knowledge-graph 310 and provide one or more medical conditions, diagnoses, treatment plans, or testing plans”; It can be seen that the extracted symptom from the input is compared to the symptom from the knowledge-graph 310 to determine the medical conditions, diagnoses, etc., of the patient];
Datla does not explicitly teach
identifying, using a logical structure, a structural similarity of the possible health related information and a known predicate in the logical structure; and
generating, by the artificial intelligence engine, cognified data based on the structural similarity.
De La Torre teaches
identifying, using a logical structure, a structural similarity of the possible health related information and a known predicate in the logical structure [abstract, “input patient data including previous diagnosis, drugs, symptoms and treatment, open data and expert knowledge, and to use these inputs to create a patient clinical object (PCO), biomedical knowledge and rule based knowledge graphs, and to enrich the PCO using the biomedical knowledge graph. A meta diagnosis predictor is to use the PCO and the biomedical knowledge graph and/or the rule based knowledge graph in plural predictors of a diagnosis-based predictor to provide a set of diagnoses based on previous diagnoses”; Figs. 3-7, Col. 3, lines 17-21, “compare the PCO with the biomedical knowledge graph to equate PCO parts with standard vocabulary and to annotate entities in the PCO with corresponding concepts/information from the biomedical knowledge graph”; Col. 12, lines 46-63, “identifying, using the graph database of the biomedical knowledge graph, entities in the input patient data including identifying codes, strings of letters and/or words that correspond to diagnoses, drugs, treatments, and symptoms, and annotating each entity in the graph database of the PCO with concepts and/or information from the graph database of the biomedical knowledge graph by comparing the graph database of the PCO with the graph database of the biomedical knowledge graph to equate PCO parts including the identified diagnoses, drugs, treatments, and symptoms, of the PCO with a standard vocabulary in the graph database the biomedical knowledge graph to annotate each entity in the graph database of the PCO with corresponding concepts and/or information from the graph database of the biomedical knowledge graph”; Figs. 3-7 show a logical structure of the biomedical knowledge graph such as anxiety states diagnosis has a symptoms of panic and heart palpitations, where “has a symptoms of panic and heart palpitations” are the predicate in the logical structure, and the input patient data that including diagnoses, drugs, treatments, and symptoms is compared with the data in the biomedical knowledge graph which comprising the logical structure to identify the similarity]; and
generating, by the artificial intelligence engine, cogn