DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments filed on 17 December 2025.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 18, and 21-26 is/are currently pending 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 .
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 15, 17, 18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 recites a system comprising: a plurality of entity recognition models [based] conflicts between entities identified differently by different entity recognition models of the plurality of entity recognition models, wherein resolving conflicts between entities identified differently comprises selecting an identified entity of conflicting identified entities by: assigning weightings to conflicting identified entities of the plurality of entity recognition models based on the probability of the text expression being an instance of the respective entity; adjusting weightings of the conflicting identified entities based on relative sizes of the respective labeled datasets used to train each of the plurality of entity recognition models and based on similarity of the respective labeled datasets to the medical report, adjusting the weightings of the conflicting identified entities based on an output of the multiple entity recognition model; and selecting an identified entity of the conflicting identified entities having the highest adjusted weighting; assemble instances of the resolved entities
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of evaluating a report with different models to generate a summary. This concept is analogous to the examples of “evaluation” and “judgement” given in MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind. As such, the claim concept falls within the mental processes grouping. Therefore the claim is determined to recites an abstract idea. Alternatively, like the example of “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), this concept describes a mental process that someone should follow when summarizing a medical report. As such, the claim concept falls within the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore the claim is determined to recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of one or more processors and non-transitory memory. This additional element is recited at an extremely high level of generality and is interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of models which are trained and wherein each model of the plurality of models is trained on a respective input dataset and a respective labeled dataset, the respective labeled dataset comprising selected text data from medical records, the selected text data curated to include instances of the respective entity with a targeted frequency, a targeted length, and a target degree of adjacency. The description of the models as “trained” is understood to be an invocation of machine learning, which requires a computing device. At the level of generality with which the training is claimed, this additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite an additional element of receive data from an electronic database. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply impose a meaningful limit on the claim. Instead, this additional elements amount to necessary data gathering. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of assembling data into a hierarchical data structure, and searching for an extracting instances from the hierarchical data structure. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, this addition element only generally links the abstract idea to the technical environment of a computer.
The claims further recite the additional element of displaying data on a display device of the system or saving data in the non-transitory memory. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply impose a meaningful limit on the claim. Instead, this additional elements amount to necessary data outputting. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of receive data from an electronic database. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognizing retrieving information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. The conventionality of this functionality reinforces the conclusion that this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of assembling data into a hierarchical data structure, and searching for and extracting instances from the hierarchical data structure. Schimunek et al. (US 2009/0307241 A1) demonstrates (“Conventional searching of hierarchical data structures entails” [0019]) that hierarchical data structures and retrieving data from them was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of displaying data on a display device of the system or saving data in the non-transitory memory. Guha (US 5844559) demonstrates that displaying information on a display device (conventional computer software applications display information to a user on a display screen such as a conventional computer display. See at least Column 1, Lines 11-13) was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognizing storing information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. The conventionality of these functionalities reinforces the conclusion that this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17, 18, and 22-25 further describe the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 17, 18, and 22-25 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and in combination, only generally link the narrowed abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer. Therefore dependent claims 17, 18, and 22-25 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Because the previously identified additional elements, individually and in combination, only generally link the narrowed abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 21 recites a machine learning model. This limitation further limits the prior identified additional element of a trained model. As previously noted, the description of the models as “trained” is understood to be an invocation of machine learning. As such, the prior analysis remains applicable to this claim. Therefore this claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. Dependent claim 26 recites the additional element of a relational database comprising a database table including a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to any technology or technical field. Additionally, this additional element does not implement the judicial exception with or using a particular machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Finally, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. Instead, this addition element only generally links the abstract idea to the technical environment of a computer. When considered as a combination with the prior identified additional elements, the combination only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer. Therefore dependent claim 26 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Kabra et al. (US 2003/0014396 A1) demonstrates (“Conventional databases, including relational and object relational databases, usually consist of a number of tables. Each table consists of a number of tuples (rows) that share some common attribute (column).” [0004]) that such databases were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more. When considered as a combination with the prior identified additional elements, the combination only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computer. Therefore the combination of additional elements of claim 26 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 15, 17, 18, and 21-26:
There are multiple ways to evaluate a report to generate a summary, even using machine learning models. See SMED, paragraph 12. The claims set forth a particular approach that uses multiple models, trained in specific ways, which the inventors determined was associated with improvements in terms of increased processing efficiency and accuracy in model output when used to recognize entities in medical reports. See SMED, paragraph 12. As such, the claims do not preempt all ways of evaluating reports or generating summaries using machine learning.
The claimed invention improves the field of machine learning-based entity recognition by addressing specific technical problems, as explained in the accompanying SMED. See SMED, paragraphs 15-17.
Claim 15 further provides a specific technical mechanism for combining outputs from multiple specialized models and resolving conflicts between models. See SMED, paragraph 11. This weighted aggregation approach represents a specific improvement to how machine learning systems combine model outputs, directly addressing the technical challenge of leveraging multiple specialized models.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per MPEP 2106.04, preemption “it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility” and “questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo”. Thus an argument that there are other ways of achieving a goal does not rebut a determination under the Mayo/Alice analysis that the claims are ineligible. Further, Examiner notes that the models are not “trained in a specific way” but rather are claimed as “trained to identify instances of a respective entity in a medical report” and “trained to identify instances of a plurality of entities in the medical report.” Beyond those functional goals, the claims describe the training data without any operational details of the training. Merely specifying the type of data used to train a model without details of implementation would not be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a technical improvement.
The declaration appears to contain both objective evidence and opinion evidence regarding whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed invention to be an improvement to technology. Regarding objective evidence, for example, the declaration states “By using a suite of specialized models with targeted training data and a conflict resolution mechanism as claimed, the system achieves higher accuracy of labeling entities compared with prior approaches, particularly for rare or underrepresented entities and ambiguous expressions”. However, the objective evidence of the declaration appears to be entirely unsubstantiated by actual proof. Note that the Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations memo (4 December 2025) states that “To be of probative value, any objective evidence should be supported by actual proof.” As such, this evidence is given very limited weight. Regarding the opinion evidence, for example, the declaration states “one of ordinary skill in the art … would interpret the claimed approach as improving the functioning of the technology”. MPEP 716.01(c) states that “[a]lthough factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue.” Here, whether or not one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement does not address the ultimate legal conclusion of eligibility. As such, the opinion evidence is entitled to consideration and some weight. Further, per MPEP 716.01(c), “In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion.” Here, (1) the matter sought to be established appears to be of a non-legal matter of opinion, (2) the declaration is made by the interventor who has an interest in the outcome of the case, and (3) there is no factual evidence presented supporting the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the claimed invention to be technological improvement. Considering these factors, the declaration is given limited weight and does not overcome the prior determination that the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. … In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.“ Here, the identified improvement appears to be entirely provided by the abstract idea. As such, the asserted improvement does not qualify as a technical improvement for eligibility purposes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-01-10