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 .
Status of claim(s).
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, 17-24 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) a system, which is a statutory category (i.e. machine). Claim 1 recite(s) a method (i.e. process).. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 fall within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (see MPEP2106.04-.07), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitations of independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea Specifically, Claim 1 recites the steps of
A system for using temporal objects for natural language processing, the system comprising:
an electronic processor configured to
receive a first electronic medical record of a patient, wherein the first electronic medical record is for a first event of the patient,
determine, using a temporal object of a temporal domain and natural language processing, a temporal statement and an associated element included in the first electronic medical record, wherein the temporal statement and the associated element are for the first event, and wherein the temporal statement indicates a temporality of the first event,
determine a date for the first event based on the temporal statement and the associated element,
generate, based on the date, a first temporal event entry that represents the first event, and
incorporate the first temporal event entry into a longitudinal medical record that compiles health-related events of the patient into a unified health timeline specific to the patient.
Claim 11 recites
A method for using temporal objects for natural language processing, the method comprising:
receiving, with an electronic processor, a set of electronic records of a patient, wherein the set of electronic records includes a first electronic record related to a medical event of the patient and a second electronic record related to the medical event of the patient;
for each electronic record included in the set of electronic records,
determining, from a corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a temporal statement and an element related to the temporal statement using a temporal domain and natural language processing, wherein the temporal statement and the element are associated with the medical event; and
determining, for the corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a date for the medical event based on the temporal statement and the element for the corresponding electronic record;
detecting, with the electronic processor, a conflict between the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record;
executing, with the electronic processor, a reconciliation process with respect to the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record;
determining, with the electronic processor, based on execution of the reconciliation process, a derived date for the medical event based on the first electronic record and the second electronic record;
generating, with the electronic processor, based on the derived date, a temporal event entry for the medical event for a medical profile of the patient; and
enabling, with the electronic processor, access to the temporal event entry.
The limitation “receive a first electronic medical record of a patient, wherein the first electronic medical record is for a first event of the patient,
determine, using a temporal object of a temporal domain and natural language processing, a temporal statement and an associated element included in the first electronic medical record, wherein the temporal statement and the associated element are for the first event, and wherein the temporal statement indicates a temporality ofthe first event,”, constitute (c) mental process because determining temporal statement of medical events of electronic files can be performed practically by the healthcare professionals. Accordingly the claims describe the abstract idea of (c) mental process.
The limitation “generate, based on the temporal characteristic, a temporal event entry associated with the event for a profile of the patient, and enable access to the temporal event entry” constitute (b) certain methods of organizing human activity because accessing medical records can be performed practically by the healthcare professionals. Accordingly the claims describe the abstract idea of ((b) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 11 is identical as the abstract idea of claim 1 because the only difference between claim 1 and claim 11 is that claim 1 recites a system and claim 11 recites a method.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-3, 6-9, 12-15, 17-24 further define the at least one abstract idea as set forth below:
For Claims 2-3, 6-9, 12-15, 17-24 the dependent claims recite further the approach of different techniques to determine the temporal objects and statements different electronic medical records/type files as being part of the abstract idea, as part of organizing human activity.
Step 2A - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-.07), it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-.07, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites
A system for using temporal objects for natural language processing, the system comprising:
an electronic processor configured to
receive a first electronic medical record of a patient, wherein the first electronic medical record is for a first event of the patient (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)),
determine, using a temporal object of a temporal domain and natural language processing, a temporal statement and an associated element included in the first electronic medical record, wherein the temporal statement and the associated element are for the first event, and wherein the temporal statement indicates a temporality of the first event, (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)),,
determine a temporal characteristic for the event based on the temporal statement and the associated element (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)),,
determine a date for the first event based on the temporal statement and the associated element merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)),
generate, based on the date, a first temporal event entry that represents the first event ( merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and
incorporate the first temporal event entry into a longitudinal medical record that compiles health-related events of the patient into a unified health timeline specific to the patient.(merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec)), and
Claim 11 recites
A method for using temporal objects for natural language processing, the method comprising:
receiving, with an electronic processor, a set of electronic records of a patient, wherein the set of electronic records includes a first electronic record related to a medical event of the patient and a second electronic record related to the medical event of the patient ( merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
for each electronic record included in the set of electronic records,
determining, from a corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a temporal statement and an element related to the temporal statement using a temporal domain and natural language processing, wherein the temporal statement and the element are associated with the medical event ( merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)); and
determining, for the corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a date for the medical event based on the temporal statement and the element for the corresponding electronic record ( merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
detecting, with the electronic processor, a conflict between the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record;
executing, with the electronic processor, a reconciliation process with respect to the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record;
determining, with the electronic processor, based on execution of the reconciliation process, a derived date for the medical event based on the first electronic record and the second electronic record (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec);
generating, with the electronic processor, based on the derived date, a temporal event entry for the medical event for a medical profile of the patient (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec). ; and
enabling, with the electronic processor, access to the temporal event entry (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving, with an electronic processor, a set of electronic records of a patient, wherein the set of electronic records includes a first electronic record related to a medical event of the patient and a second electronic record related to the medical event of the patient; determining, from a corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a temporal statement and an element related to the temporal statement using a temporal domain and natural language processing, wherein the temporal statement and the element are associated with the medical event; determining, for the corresponding electronic record, with the electronic processor, a date for the medical event based on the temporal statement and the element for the corresponding electronic record”, this is a pre-solution activity. the Examiner submits that these limitations are instructed to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely invoking use of computer to perform the process, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting, with the electronic processor, a conflict between the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record; executing, with the electronic processor, a reconciliation process with respect to the date determined for the first electronic record and the date determined for the second electronic record; determining, with the electronic processor, based on execution of the reconciliation process, a derived date for the medical event based on the first electronic record and the second electronic record; generating, with the electronic processor, based on the derived date, a temporal event entry for the medical event for a medical profile of the patient; and enabling, with the electronic processor, access to the temporal event entry”, this is a post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Particularly, the use of a computer, a processor, a server, as described in Specification (Paras 0031, 0064,), and dependent claims is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed insufficient to a structure or apparatus that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). The Specification describes the additional elements. However, the specification does not describe any specialized components of the computing environment, but only describes these suitable components. Furthermore, the mere use of Natural Language Processing, NLP application, (Spec.; Para 0057, 0060) to receive, to determine, to incorporate and to execute a reconciliation process, to enable access “add nothing when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to generate the event entry, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP § 2106.05). Thus, claims 1-20 as a whole do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 11 with its dependent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 11 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, 17-24 limit the use of the computing system, a processor, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, 17-24 are held ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pre-Appeal Brief, filed 03/17/2026, under 35USC103, with respect to no disclosure of Riskin reference regarding a class of objects whose type ids temporal, or temporal domain have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection under 35USC103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20130226616A1, Aug. 29,2013; Nigam et al.; Method and System for Examining Practice-Based Evidence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached on 5712728109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights