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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 19-21 have been added. Claims 1-7 and 19-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 8 of the response that amended claim 1 “does not organize or manage human behavior,” and that it instead “recites a specific computer-implemented process that alters the operation of an automated document-coding system.” Applicant asserts that “[t]he claim requires an NLP module to identify an evidence text string and the document region from which the evidence text string was obtained, automatic capture and storage of that machine-identified context as an assignment-rule entry, processor-based analysis of multiple stored attribute sets to retain only common attributes, creation and storage of a new assignment rule from the modified set of attributes, and automatic application of the resulting rule to alter the coding of a subsequently processed document when the granular context of that document matches the modified set of attributes used to create the rule.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed below, elements such as the use of natural language processing, computer processors, and the performance of functions “automatically” are each addressed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, and do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
As set out in MPEP 2106.04(a), whether a claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 is determined by “(1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas… If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”.
The analysis in Step 2A Prong 1 below sets out the limitations construed as falling within the scope of a method of organizing human activity, such as the limitations involving parsing the first document to identify an evidence text string and a region of the first document from which the evidence text string was obtained, providing a plurality of previous assignments of the code to one or more existing documents, and capturing a granular context as a set of attributes in response to the code being assigned or removed from the first document. The limitations listed below set out a process for evaluating the assignment of codes to documents to identify rules for assignment and then applying those rules to a second document, each of which could be performed by a human coder.
While Applicant asserts that the claims “do not recite behavior management of any person, nor do they prescribe how any individual should act, interact, make decisions, or comply with organizational policies,” using computing elements to automate functions falling with the scope of a method of organizing human activity does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1. This applies equally to Applicant’s assertions on page 10 that the claimed method “does not prescribe, regulate, coordinate, or otherwise manage the behavior of a document coder” or “require an individual to make the subsequent coding determination.” The explicit recitation of a human performing each of the functions within a claim is not required for a claim to recite a method of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides examples such as Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) in which the Court held that the claims were directed to “"tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity."”
Applicant asserts that the analysis provided “does not account for the claimed relationship among: the evidence identified by the NLP module; the region from which that evidence was obtained; the code assigned based on the evidence; the granular context automatically captured in response to assignment or removal of the code; the structured assignment-rule entry stored in the database; the elimination of attributes not common to all analyzed attribute sets; the modified attribute set containing only common attributes; the assignment rule generated from that modified set; and the matching of the granular context of a subsequently processed document to the attributes used to create the rule.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of these elements and their relationship is addressed either in Step 2A Prong 1, such as the elements of identifying the evidence and the region from which that evidence was obtained, the code assigned based on the evidence, the granular context captured in response to assignment or removal of the code, the structured assignment-rule entry being stored, the elimination of attributes not common to all analyzed attribute sets, the modified attribute set containing only common attributes, the assignment rule generated from that modified set, and the matching of the granular context of a subsequently processed document to the attributes used to create the rule each falling within the scope of the abstract idea, and the elements of the NLP module and capturing the granular context “automatically” being additional elements. Each of these additional elements is addressed under Step 2A Prong 2 within the context of the claim as a whole.
Applicant argues starting on page 11 that claim 1 integrates any recited abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that “the claimed process transforms multiple granular-context attribute sets into a modified attribute set containing only common attributes and then into a stored assignment rule used by the coding process,” and that “[t]his is not mere storage or display of preexisting information” on the basis that “[t]he resulting rule differs from the individual entries from which the rule is derived.” However, the step of eliminating attributes not common to all of the sets of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes, resulting in a modified set of attributes containing only attributes common across the plurality of sets of attributes, and storage of a rule created “based on the modified set of attributes” falls within the scope of the abstract idea. The database used to implement the storage is only recited at a high level of generality and is disclosed broadly. Whether the rule differs from the individual entries used to derive it is part of the processing steps within the abstract idea. Integration into a practical application cannot be established from functions falling entirely within the scope of the abstract idea.
Applicant lastly argues starting on page 12 that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea when the recited limitations are considered individually and as an ordered combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that “[v]iewed as an ordered combination, the claimed limitations do not merely assign a generalized human evaluation to a processor,” and “define a specific processing architecture in which NLP-derived context from prior coding events is transformed into a different machine-readable rule that controls later automated coding output.” However, the use of natural language processing to implement the function of parsing text within a document to identify an evidence text string and a region of the first document only amounts to instructions to apply computer elements to implement the text extraction from the document. Claim 1 recites parsing a first document “using a natural language processing module…to identify an evidence text string and a region of the first document from which the evidence text string was obtained.” Reciting the use of natural language processing as “used” to parse the text within the document “to identify” the evidence text string and region only amounts to instructions to implement the parsing functionality using natural language processing. Each step of the claim using information produced in a previous step does not change this analysis under Step 2B.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “based on modified set” in lines 19 and 20, which Examiner believes contains a typographical error intended to recite “based on the modified set…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 19-21 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. Claims 1-7 and 19-21 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
parsing a first document to identify an evidence text string and a region of the first document from which the evidence text string was obtained, and assigning a code to the first document based on the evidence text string;
providing a plurality of previous assignments of the code to one or more existing documents, based on a plurality of sets of attributes, each attribute in the plurality of sets of attributes previously believed to affect the assignment of the code;
capturing, in response to the code being assigned or removed from the first document, a granular context as a set of attributes comprising at least the region of the first document and the evidence text string used for assigning the code and storing the set of attributes as an assignment rule entry;
eliminating attributes not common to all of the sets of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes, resulting in a modified set of attributes containing only attributes common across the plurality of sets of attributes; and
evaluating the assignment of the code based on modified set of attributes by creating an assignment rule based on the modified set of attributes and storing the assignment rule, and using the assignment rule, by the one or more coding processes, to suppress or assign the code during subsequent processing of a second document when a granular context of the second document matches the modified set of attributes used to create the assignment rule.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior, and therefore fall within the scope of an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of determining whether to assign a code to a second document by creating rules from attributes in common between portions of previous documents to which the code was assigned, and using the rule to determine whether to assign the code during subsequent processing of the second document. The particular elements of the claim listed above could all be performed by an individual performing document coding and who uses determinations of whether particular codes were appropriately assigned to documents in particular contexts to inform whether to assign them to future documents.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 recites additional elements of a) by one or more computer processors used to perform the data processing functions including parsing the document, providing the previously assigned code, capturing the granular context, and evaluating the assignment of the code, b) a natural language processing module used to parse the document, c) a database used to store the rule and the set of attributes as the blacklist or whitelist entry, and d) “automatically” performing the assignment of the code to the first document, and the capturing, suppression or assignment, and processing of the second document.
Page 7 lines 23-28 describe a client computing device, such as “a terminal, a portable computer, a handheld device, etc,” and a computer server as implementing the disclosed functions. No other disclosure of “one or more computer processors” is provided beyond these computing elements. The one or more computer processors are construed as encompassing generic computing elements. Additionally, the recitation of the capturing, suppression or assignment of a code, and processing of the second document as performed “automatically” is construed as part of performing these functions using computing elements, which encompass generic computing elements as set out above.
Page 9 lines 14-16 describe a natural language processing module as residing on the server. The natural language processing module is accordingly construed as encompassing software running on generic computing elements.
Page 7 lines 5-6, 17-21, and 32-33 describe a database in terms of its function of storing rules and blacklist/whitelist entries. However, no further disclosure of the database structure is provided. The database is therefore construed as encompassing a generic computer database.
The above elements only amount to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using generic computing elements. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality insofar as each corresponding function is recited as performed “by” the one or more processors and are only disclosed in the form of generic devices such as handheld devices and servers, the database is recited at a high level of generality as used to store the respective types of information, and the natural language processing module is similarly only recited at a high level of generality insofar as the parsing is performed “using a natural language processing module.”
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the one or more processors, and by extension “automatic” performance of functions, natural language processing module, and database as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claim 2 recites wherein the step of evaluating the assignment of the code is further based on a new attribute comprising site practice or external information not initially captured in the first document. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 3 recites wherein the assignment rule comprises a new blacklist entry or a new whitelist entry used to determine the assignment of the code during subsequent processing of documents. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of the subsequent processing of documents being “automated.”
As cited above with respect to claim 1, page 7 lines 23-28 describe a client computing device, such as “a terminal, a portable computer, a handheld device, etc,” and a computer server as implementing the disclosed functions. The recitation of the subsequent processing of documents as being “automated” is construed as performing these functions using computing elements, which encompass generic computing elements as set out above.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using generic computing elements. The recitation of the subsequent processing of documents as being “automated” is only provided at a high level of generality within the claim, and is disclosed in a manner which encompasses the use of generic computing elements to provide such functionality. This element is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites wherein the assignment rule is stored with previously defined rules used by the one or more coding processes to assign codes to documents
Claim 4 further recites the additional element of a coding rules database recited as used to save the assignment rule.
With respect to the recited database, page 7 lines 5-6, 18-20, and 32-33 describe a coding rules database in terms of its function of storing rules. However, no further disclosure of the database structure is provided. The coding rules database is therefore construed as encompassing a generic computer database.
The recited database only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions using generic computing elements. The database is only recited at a high level of generality as having the rule saved to it, and is only broadly disclosed. This element is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites wherein each set of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes comprises a granular context for a respective document at a time corresponding to an instance when the code was previously assigned to or removed from the respective document and includes information pertaining to one or more of: a region of the respective document, a section of the respective document, path, code role, evidence text, specialty, document type, patient age, and patient gender. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 6 recites receiving information from a user on an appropriateness of a previous assignment of the code, wherein the assignment rule entry is created based on the received information and includes the granular context.
Claim 6 further recites additional element of a) a graphical user interface used to receive the information.
With respect to the recited graphical user interface, page 8 lines 11-12, page 9 lines 1-2, and page 10 lines 1-4 describe a user interface such as on a client computing device in terms of its function of receiving input from a user. However, no further disclosure of the graphical user interface itself is provided. The graphical user interface is therefore construed as encompassing a generic graphical interface.
The recited graphical user interface only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions using generic computing elements. The graphical user interface is only recited at a high level of generality as used to receive the information from the user, and is only broadly disclosed.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites wherein each set of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes is created when a respective assignment rule entry is generated for the code, and the respective assignment rule entry is stored for use in future evaluations of the code. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of the database as used to store the blacklist or whitelist entry.
Page 7 lines 5-6 and 17-21 describe a database in terms of its function of storing rules and blacklist/whitelist entries. However, no further disclosure of the database structure is provided. The database is therefore construed as encompassing a generic computer database.
The recited database only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using generic computing elements. The database is only recited at a high level of generality as used to store the blacklist or whitelist entry, and is only broadly disclosed. This element is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites wherein the assignment rule entry comprises a blacklist entry, the assignment rule comprises a blacklist rule, and the blacklist rule is used by the one or more coding processes to remove the code during the subsequent processing of the second document when the code was assigned based on an evidence text string discovered in a region of the second document and when the granular context of the second document matches the modified set of attributes used to create the blacklist rule.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of removing the code “automatically,” and the subsequent processing of the second document being “automated.”
As cited above with respect to claim 1, page 7 lines 23-28 describe a client computing device, such as “a terminal, a portable computer, a handheld device, etc,” and a computer server as implementing the disclosed functions. The recitation of removing the code automatically and the subsequent processing of documents as being automated is construed as performing these functions using computing elements, which encompass generic computing elements as set out above.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using generic computing elements. The recitation of removing the code automatically and the subsequent processing of documents being automated are only provided at a high level of generality within the claim, and are disclosed in a manner which encompasses the use of generic computing elements to provide such functionality. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites wherein the assignment rule entry comprises a whitelist entry, the assignment rule comprises a whitelist rule, and the whitelist rule is used by the one or more coding processes to assign the code during the subsequent processing of the second document.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of assigning the code “automatically,” and the subsequent processing of the second document being “automated.”
As cited above with respect to claim 1, page 7 lines 23-28 describe a client computing device, such as “a terminal, a portable computer, a handheld device, etc,” and a computer server as implementing the disclosed functions. The recitation of assigning the code automatically and the subsequent processing of documents as being automated is construed as performing these functions using computing elements, which encompass generic computing elements as set out above.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using generic computing elements. The recitation of assigning the code automatically and the subsequent processing of documents being automated are only provided at a high level of generality within the claim, and are disclosed in a manner which encompasses the use of generic computing elements to provide such functionality. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more.
Claim 21 recites wherein the code was not assigned to the second document by the one or more coding processes before application of the whitelist rule, and the whitelist rule causes the code to be assigned to the second document when the granular context of the second document matches the modified set of attributes used to create the whitelist rule.
Claims 1-7 and 19-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendments filed 8/20/2026.
Claims Not Rejected under 35 USC 102/103
Claims 1-7 and 19-20 are not rejected under 35 USC 102/103 under the current closest prior art of record listed herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kavuluru et al, An empirical evaluation of supervised learning approaches in assigning diagnosis codes to electronic medical records;
Perotte et al, Diagnosis code assignment: models and evaluation metrics;
Scheurwegs et al, Assigning clinical codes with data-driven concept representation on Dutch clinical free text;
Scheurwegs et al, Selecting relevant features from the electronic health record for clinical code prediction;
Reiser et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0385202);
Cox et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0235887);
Knoll et al (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0267232);
Kapit et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0004505).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
