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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 in Group I and withdrawal of Claims 8-18 in the reply filed on 7/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 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 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
for a code previously assigned to a document 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:
eliminating attributes not common to the sets of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes; and
evaluating the assignment of the code based on the remaining attributes.
These steps amount to concepts performed in the human mind including evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and therefore fall within the scope of a mental process. Fundamentally the process is that of determining attributes common between a plurality of sets of attributes previously used to assign a code to a document and believed to affect the assignment of the code, and evaluating the assignment of the code based on the common attributes. These steps could all be performed mentally by a person evaluating whether an assignment of a code to a medical document is appropriate.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 further recites the additional element of providing the previously assigned code. However, this element constitutes mere data gathering required for performance of the abstract idea, and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
As noted above, claim 1 further recites the additional element of providing the previously assigned code. However, this element constitutes mere data gathering required for performance of the abstract idea, and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
Additionally, the element of providing the previously assigned code recited in claim 1 constitutes a form of receiving or transmitting data. This limitation therefore amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity, especially given that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 3 recites creating a rule based on the remaining attributes, the rule to be used in a future evaluation of a second assignment of the code to a second document. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of a) saving the rule and b) a database recited as used to save the rule.
With respect to the element of saving the rule, this element constitutes insignificant application in the form of outputting data following performance of the abstract idea, and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
This element further constitutes a form of transmitting data and storing information in memory. This limitation therefore amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity, especially given that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to the recited database, page 7 lines 5-6 and 32-33 describe a database in terms of its function of storing rules. 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 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.
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 5 recites wherein each set of attributes in the plurality of sets of attributes comprises a granular context for the document at a time corresponding to an instance when the code was previously assigned to the document. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a) receiving information from a user on an appropriateness of a previous assignment of the code, and b) receiving the information via a graphical user interface.
With respect to the element of receiving information from a user on an appropriateness of a previous assignment of the code, this element constitutes insignificant application in the form of mere data gathering. Examiner additionally notes that the information on an appropriateness of a previous assignment of the code is not recited as further used for any function within the method. This element therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The element of receiving information from a user on an appropriateness of a previous assignment of the code further constitutes a form of receiving information. This limitation amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity, especially given that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 the code is added to a blacklist or a whitelist entry. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1-7 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims Not Rejected under 35 USC 102/103
Claims 1-7 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
Prosecution Insights