DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 08/18/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 currently amended.
Claims 1-20 currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 9-12 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
In the Office Action, claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. Particularly, the claims are allegedly directed to an abstract idea of without significantly more.
I. Step 2A, prong one:
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A, examiners must: (1) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and (2) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas, i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes (MPEP at 2106.04(a)). Particularly, with respect to the independent claims 1 and 20, the Office alleges that the limitations "generating a second subset..." recite an abstract idea that falls within the "mental process" subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (Office Action at pg. 5). Conversely, the Office acknowledges that the limitations "receiving ...,""receiving ...," and "training..." reciting non-abstract additional limitations (pg. 5-6).
II. Step 2A, prong two:
To determine whether a claim is "directed to" a recited judicial exception in prong two of Step 2A, examiners must: (1) identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit (MPEP at 2106.04(d) II).
However, even if the independent claims recite an abstract mental process, the claim is not directed to an abstract mental process because they recite additional non-abstract limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Particularly, in determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." (MPEP at §2106.05(a)-(b)).
The claimed invention solves a problem in the technical field of training a machine learning model to associate diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions. Particularly, as described in the specification, many modern devices such as automotive engines and welding stations in manufacturing factories are often equipped with self-diagnostic mechanisms.
(Specification at par. 0003). In some cases, tables or websites provide additional descriptions of the diagnostic codes such as their problems, and solutions, i.e., problem-solution description (par. 0003). However, in many cases, such existing problem-solution descriptions are not associated with the diagnostic codes (par. 0003). Instead, the descriptions are often organized by other criteria such as the symptoms from devices, component names, or just randomly listed in manuals or the Internet communities (par. 0003). Thus, it is clear that there is an existing problem in the technical field of training a machine learning model to associate diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions.
The claimed invention provides a solution to this problem in the technical field of training a machine learning model to associate diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions. Particularly, as further discussed in specification, the claimed invention enables the training of model(s) for associating problem-solution descriptions with diagnostic codes (par. 0042). Such model(s) can be utilized for populating a large database of tuples (or database records) or for generating a knowledge base, which can be searched or navigated by users to assist the users in diagnosing and solving problems for a machine or device having self- diagnostic mechanisms that return diagnostic codes (par. 0042).
Thus, it should be understood that, even if the processes for generating the second subset of training data pairs is abstract (as alleged by the Office), these features are integrated in a practical application by the non-abstract process of training a machine learning model to associate diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions. Moreover, the features yield a clear improvement in the technical field of training a machine learning model to associate diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions by solving a common problem of substantial amounts of problem-solution descriptions that are not associated with any diagnostic code.
III. Step 2B:
Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the independent claims clearly recite additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Particularly, courts have found limitations to qualify as "significantly more" or an "inventive concept" when recited in a claim that includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP at §2106.05 A). As discussed in greater detail above, the claimed invention provides a clear improvement to a technology or to a technical field because the claimed invention solves a technological problem. Accordingly, the limitations of the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant invention provides an improvement over the technological field of training a machine learning model and also states that the improvement comes from the ability of the model to associate existing codes with gathered problem solution information from various resources be it online forums, manufacturer databases, usage manuals, etc. This is not an improvement on training a machine learning model and the inventive concept is more akin to compiling all available data into one resource for users to search. Data aggregation is not an improvement over the technological field of machine learning model training as how the training is done hasn’t changed, but the amount of data to be trained on has. Furthermore, the generation step does not include any mention that the generation is being done by a machine learning model as a part of a larger training process. The training of the model starts with the subsequent limitation wherein the training is using the generated second subset of data pairs. As written, the generation step is as simple as identifying a problem-solution description and identifying a corresponding diagnostic code for that problem, and pairing them together.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 12-15 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
In the Office Action, claims 1, 17, and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being allegedly anticipated by Ghosh. As will be discussed below in detail, Ghosh fails to anticipate the claims because it does not disclose at least one limitation of each claim.
Ghosh discloses a computer system 100 able to determine and implement repairs (Ghosh at col. 3, In. 45-47). The system 100 includes at least one service computing device 102 that is able to communicate directly or indirectly with one or more data sources 104 (col. 3, In. 47-50).
In some implementations, the service computing device 102 may receive training data 142 from the one or more data sources 104 (col. 8, In. 11-14). A model building and application program 134 may use the training data 142 to train the one or more machine learning models 140 (col. 8, In. 20-22). In response to receiving a repair request 150, a repair management program 126 may
invoke the model building and application program 134 to apply the extracted information to the machine learning model(s) 140 to determine one or more probable repair solutions for the repair request (col. 8, In. 36-46).
A. Ghosh does not anticipate training data pairs including a diagnostic code and a problem-solution description.
Ghosh fails to anticipate "receiving, with a processor, a first subset of a plurality of training data pairs, each training data pair in the first plurality of training data pairs including (i) a respective diagnostic code and (ii) a respective problem-solution description associated with the respective diagnostic code." Particularly, Ghosh discloses that the data source(s) 104 may receive, store, provide, or otherwise maintain data used by the service computing device(s) 102 (col. 3, In. 66 - col. 4, In. 1). Examples of data included in the data source(s) 104 include historical repair data 108, equipment attributes 109, usage data 110, sensor data 111, event data 112, and user comments and/or error messages 113 (col. 4, In. 1-4).
Although these data may include data that can be reasonably characterized as diagnostic codes and as problem-solution descriptions, Ghosh clearly fails to teach training data pairs comprised of respective diagnostic codes associated with respective problem-solution descriptions. For example, the historical repair data 108 may include data regarding maintenance and other repairs made to the equipment in the past (col. 4, In. 4-6). However, Ghosh does not teach that the historical repair data 108 associates particular diagnostic codes with particular problem-solution descriptions.
B. Ghosh does not Ghosh anticipate associating particular diagnostic codes with particular problem-solution descriptions.
Ghosh fails to anticipate "generating, with the processor, a second subset of the plurality of training data pairs by associating the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes, using the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs." Particularly, Ghosh discloses that following a repair, a repair application 118 may cause a client computing device 115 associated with a repair to send repair result information 170 to the repair management program 126 (col. 9, In. 21-24). In response, the repair management program 126 may store the received result information as new data 172 in the historical repair data 108 (col. 9, In. 24-26). The new data 172 may subsequently be used as part of the training data 142 for retraining the one or more machine learning models 140, thereby improving the operation of the one or more machine learning models 140 (col. 9, In. 26-30).
As mentioned previously, the historical repair data 108 may include data regarding maintenance and other repairs made to the equipment in the past (col. 4, In. 4-6). However, Ghosh does not teach that the historical repair data 108 associates particular diagnostic codes with particular problem-solution descriptions. Accordingly, there is no disclosure or suggestion that the new repair result information 170 would associate particular diagnostic codes with particular problem-solution descriptions.
For at least the reasons stated above, Ghosh does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 and, as a consequence, fails to anticipate the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, Ghosh cannot form the basis for a §102 rejection, and the rejection of the claim should be withdrawn.
Claims 17-18:
Claims 17-18 depend from and incorporate the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1, Ghosh fails to anticipate the limitations of the claims. Accordingly, the §102 rejections of the claims should be withdrawn.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Gilbert. As will be discussed below in detail, the proposed combinations do not arrive at the limitations of the respective claims because the references do not teach at least one limitation of each claim.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 20:
The proposed combination of Ghosh and Gilbert does not arrive at the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 20. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 depend from and incorporate the limitations of claim 1. As discussed above with respect to the §102 rejection of claim 1 over Ghosh, Ghosh does not anticipate the limitations of claim 1 because it does not disclose "[... ] training data pairs including (i) a respective diagnostic code and (ii) a respective problem-solution description associated with the respective diagnostic code" and "[...] associating the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes, using the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs," as recited in claim 1. Gilbert also does not teach these limitations. Therefore, the proposed combination of Ghosh and Gilbert fails to arrive at the limitations of the claims. Accordingly, the §103 rejections of the claims should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
It is clear to the Examiner that while Ghosh teaches much of the instant application’s claims, it is deficient in teaching the use of a subset of training data pairs generated from a first plurality of training data pairs. It is also clear to the Examiner that the inclusion of the Gilbert reference does not remedy the deficiencies of Ghosh. While Gilbert teaches the use of pairs of problem signature and solution, it does not teach the associating of problem-solution descriptions with a given diagnostic code. The pairs of data in Gilbert are structurally different from the pairs of data in the instant application, in that the pairs of Gilbert are tuples where the first element is a problem signature and the second is the problem solution, and the data pairs of the instant application are tuples where the first element is a problem-solution description and the second element is a diagnostic code. The combination of Ghosh and Gilbert would still be deficient of the action of creating a subset of these data pairs in order to train the model and a tertiary reference would need to be brought in to remedy that deficiency.
In light of the arguments presented and the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis: Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a method for associating diagnostic codes with problem-solution descriptions, therefore falling into the statutory category of process.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 1 recites in part:
“generating a second subset of the plurality of training data pairs by associating the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes, using the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating new problem-solution descriptions with existing error codes based on existing problem-solution descriptions.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving a first subset of a plurality of training data pairs, each training data pair in the first plurality of training data pairs including (i) a respective diagnostic code and (ii) a respective problem-solution description associated with the respective diagnostic code”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“with a processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving a plurality of problem-solution descriptions that are not yet associated with any diagnostic codes”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“training at least one machine learning model using on the plurality of training data pairs, the at least one model being configured to associate diagnostic codes with problem- solution descriptions”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving a first subset of a plurality of training data pairs, each training data pair in the first plurality of training data pairs including (i) a respective diagnostic code and (ii) a respective problem-solution description associated with the respective diagnostic code” and “receiving a plurality of problem-solution descriptions that are not yet associated with any diagnostic codes” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “with a processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training at least one machine learning model using on the plurality of training data pairs, the at least one model being configured to associate diagnostic codes with problem- solution descriptions” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 2 recites in part:
“generating a search index based on the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses indexing given data.
“associating each of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes from the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs using the search index”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating new data with exiting data using an index.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 3 recites in part:
“comparing each of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with each respective problem-solution description from the first subset of the plurality of training data pairs using the search index”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing new data with existing data using an index.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 4 recites in part:
“comparing words in each of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with words in the search index using a fuzzy matching technique.”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses comparing words.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 5 recites in part:
“generating further problem-solution descriptions by substituting synonymous words into the plurality of problem-solution descriptions”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses using synonyms in problem-solution descriptions.
“associating the further problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes using the search index”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating new data with exiting data using an index.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“determining a confidence score for each association of the plurality of problem- solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a confidence score.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 7 recites in part:
“performing at least one process to eliminate incorrect associations of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association.
“determining second subset of the plurality of training data pairs as a set of remaining associations of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining what correct data associations remain after removing incorrect ones.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 8 recites in part:
“applying a rule to the associations of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes, eliminating an incorrect association of a respective one of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with a respective diagnostic code depending on a result of applying the rule”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association according to a rule.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 9 recites in part:
“eliminating an incorrect association of a respective one of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with a respective diagnostic code depending on the user inputs”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association according to a user input.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving user inputs regarding the associations of the plurality of problem- solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving user inputs regarding the associations of the plurality of problem- solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 10 recites in part:
“determining a plurality of word embeddings for the plurality of problem-solution descriptions and the respective problem-solution descriptions of the first plurality of training data pairs”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining word embeddings.
“clustering the word embedding using a clustering technique”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses clustering data around a central point or points.
“eliminating an incorrect association of a respective one of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with a respective diagnostic code depending on the clustering of the word embeddings”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association according to a clustering.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 11 recites in part:
“eliminating an incorrect association of a respective one of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with a respective diagnostic code using the further machine learning model”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving further training data including a plurality of keywords associated with respective diagnostic codes”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“training a further machine learning model to associate keywords with diagnostic codes using the further training data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving further training data including a plurality of keywords associated with respective diagnostic codes” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a further machine learning model to associate keywords with diagnostic codes using the further training data” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 12 recites in part:
“performing a plurality of processes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses performing multiple actions.
“combining results of the plurality of processes to eliminate incorrect associations of the plurality of problem-solution descriptions with respective diagnostic codes”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses removing incorrect data association based on multiple actions.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 13 recites in part:
“combining results of the plurality of processes using a weighted sum”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses combining the outputs of different processes.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 14 recites in part:
“generating a third subset of the plurality of training data pairs by synthesizing further plurality of problem-solution descriptions for a respective diagnostic code based on a definition of the respective diagnostic code”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses associating new problem-solution descriptions with existing error codes based on diagnostic code definition.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“with the processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “with the processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“training a first machine learning model configured to map an input problem-solution description to at least one diagnostic code”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a first machine learning model configured to map an input problem-solution description to at least one diagnostic code” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“training a second machine learning model configured to map an input diagnostic code to at least one problem-solution description”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a second machine learning model configured to map an input diagnostic code to at least one problem-solution description” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 17:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 17 recites in part:
“generating a knowledge base by generating summaries of problem-solution descriptions associated with each diagnostic code”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating summaries of problem-solution descriptions.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“with the processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “with the processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 18:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“populating a database of problem-solution descriptions and associated diagnostic codes, using the at least one machine learning model”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“with the processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “populating a database of problem-solution descriptions and associated diagnostic codes, using the at least one machine learning model” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “with the processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 19:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:Claim 19 recites in part:
“searching a database of problem-solution based on the search query”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses searching a database.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving a search query from a user”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“with the processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “populating a database of problem-solution descriptions and associated diagnostic codes, using the model” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining 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”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “with the processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 20 recites in part:
“searching the database using a result of the feeding the search query into the at least one machine learning model”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses searching a database.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“feeding the search query into the at least one machine learning model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “feeding the search query into the model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a pr