DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 1/15/26. Claims 37-58 are pending in this Office Action.
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 Amendment
The objection of claim 41 and rejection of claims 48-53 under 35 USC 101 for directed to non-statutory category have been withdrawn by the examiner in response to amendment that overcome the objection and rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claims 37-58 under 35 USC 101 for directed to abstract idea without significantly more have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues: “Independent claims 37, 48, and 54 each recite "accessing a stored analytic method internal representation of an analytic method" and "identifying a routing target whose association with the combination of answers selected by the first user input is encoded in the internal representation." These features require a specific technical structure, such as an internal representation that encodes questions, possible answers, and routing targets with defined associations, all of which cannot be performed in the human mind”( Applicant’s argument at page 8)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The identifying step of claim 37,48 and 54 encompasses a user making a selection in his or her mind about a routing target which clearly a can be done in the human mind. Since claims 37,48 and 54 recite a limitation that directed toward mental process, these claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A-Prong1 analysis.
Applicant argues: “Further, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technical improvement in medical knowledge delivery. The specification at page 8, lines 8-11, sets forth that "by using the facility to represent medical knowledge as an analytic method in the ways described above, the facility renders that medical knowledge 'computable'--i.e., usable in the facility's consumer user interface to directly and systematically apply to a patient”(Applicant argument at page 8)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 37,48 and 54 do not recite any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, claims 37,48 and 54 only recite additional insignificant extra solution activities. The insignificant extra solution activities do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A-Prog 2.
Applicant argues: “Still further, Applicant respectfully traverses the characterization of the additional elements as "pre/post solution activities." The recited claim features of "accessing a stored analytic method internal representation," "presenting one or more questions encoded in the internal representation," "presenting a plurality of possible answers to the question encoded in the internal representation," and "presenting information whose association with the identified routing target is encoded in the internal representation" are integral to the claimed technical solution, not mere data gathering or output steps. The claims set forth a specific data structure (the internal representation) with specific encoded relationships (e.g., questions, answers, routing targets, and their associations) that enables the systematic application of medical knowledge. The "internal representation" that encodes questions, answers, and routing targets as recited by independent claims 37, 48, and 54 is a concrete technical solution that enables systematic application of medical knowledge to patient treatment through a computing system.”(Applicant’s arguments at page 9)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 37, 48, and 54 as recited only recite at a very high level of generality that involves accessing internal representation without any details of how the internal representation is constructed such that it is considered “specific data structure” as applicant asserts. Without any details of how the data structure is constructed, the accessing and displaying steps as recited in claims 37, 48, and 54 are no more than mere data gathering steps and therefore considered insignificant extra solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide an improvements of the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant argues: “Further, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technical improvement in medical knowledge delivery. The specification at page 8, lines 8-11, sets forth that "by using the facility to represent medical knowledge as an analytic method in the ways described above, the facility renders that medical knowledge 'computable'--i.e., usable in the facility's consumer user interface to directly and systematically apply to a patient." (Applicant’s argument at page 8)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 37, 48, and 54 as recited only recite the additional elements that considered insignificant extra solution activities when considered under Step 2A- prong two and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues: “Accordingly, the system of Ghanbari dynamically generates questions and determines diagnoses through real-time NLP analysis and statistical inference. There is no pre-encoded association between specific answer combinations and routing targets stored in an internal representation as set forth in the independent claims. Instead, the system of Ghanbari computes the next question and diagnosis dynamically based on statistical analysis of the current state.”(Applicant’s argument at page 11)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “pre-encoded association between specific answer combinations and routing targets stored in an internal representation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 37, 48, and 54 as currently recited, only require that both questions and answers are encoded in the internal representation and that the answers are “possible answers to the question”. There is no requirement in the claim of a specific pre-encoded mapping/association combination of answers and routing targets stored in an internal representation as applicant asserts, instead, claim 37, 48, and 54 only require that “identifying a routing target whose association with the combination of answers selected by the first user input is encoded in the internal representation”. Even for the sake of argument that somehow the claim requires that the pre-encoded combination of answers being associated with the routing target and stored in the internal representation, Ghanbari also discloses this feature as well as. That is , in order to dynamically provide possible answers in response to the user’s input as taught by Ghanbari in par [0050] teaches that the analysis may use any of a variety of well-known pattern matching system such as statistical analysis for associating a given input with a particular result. Since the statistical inference is being used to compare, this statistical inference therefore is associated with the answers and therefore, Ghanbari teaches “identifying a routing target whose association with the combination of answers selected by the first user input is encoded in the internal representation” as recited.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the argument above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale as stated above.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains prior art and 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejections.
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 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 48 recites a “computer readable media” . The specification fails to expressly limit the recited “computer readable media” to a statutory embodiment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium or recording medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage medium. See Ex parte Mehwerter, App. No. 2012-007692 (PTAB 2013)(precedential). Since the specification fails to provide a definition of computer readable medium that excludes transitory propagating signals, the recited “computer readable media” is interpreted to include non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signals, carrier waves, etc.).
Accordingly, claim 48 fails to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 49-53 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 for failing to recite statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner suggests amending the above claim to explicitly exclude signals (e.g., by adding the phrase “non-transitory”) to obviate the rejection.
Claims 37-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 37, 48 and 54:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 54 recites a computing device (i.e., a “machine”) , claim 48 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture) and claim 37 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) which are statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
Claim 37:
The limitation “for each question among the one or more questions, receiving first user input selecting at least one of the presented possible answers to the question”; “identifying a routing target whose association with the combination of answers selected by the first user input is encoded in the internal representation ” are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 37 recites additional elements of :
accessing a stored analytic method internal representation of an analytic method; presenting one or more questions encoded in the internal representation;
for each question among the one or more questions, presenting a plurality of possible answers to the question encoded in the internal representation; and
presenting information whose association with the identified routing target is encoded in the internal representation
these additional elements are pre/post solution activities and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 37 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements remain in insignificant extra-solution activity when reconsidered. The insignificant extra-solution activity does not provide and inventive concept. Claim 37 is not patent eligible.
Claim 38 recites additional element of “receiving second user input selecting the descriptive information describing a distinguished one of the plurality of analytic methods, wherein the accessed internal representation is of the distinguished analytic method” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element of “for each of a plurality of analytic methods whose internal representations are contained in a repository, displaying descriptive information describing the analytic method” is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 38 is ineligible.
Claim 39 recites additional element of “wherein the presented information comprises a document that is external to the repository” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 39 is ineligible.
Claim 40 recites additional element of “wherein the presented information comprises one or more additional questions” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 40 is ineligible.
Claim 41 recites additional element of “performing an EMR action to perform on behalf of a patient for whom the analytic method is being performed whose association with the identified routing target is encoded in the internal representation” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 41 is ineligible.
Claim 42 recites additional element of “wherein the one or more questions comprise two or more questions” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 42 is ineligible.
Claim 43 recites additional element of “wherein, for a distinguished question among the one or more questions, user input is received selecting at least two of the presented possible answer to the question” which is a mental process. Claim 43 does not recite any additional limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and provides an inventive concept in step 2B . Claim 43 is not patent eligible.
Claim 44 recites additional element of “wherein each presented possible answer occupies a display location, and wherein the first user input identifies, for each selected possible answer, the display location occupied by the possible answer” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 44 is ineligible.
Claim 45 recites additional element of “wherein the one or more questions and the possible answers are presented by outputting synthesized speech audio, and wherein the first user input comprises, for each selected possible answer, speech that at least approximately matches at least a portion of the possible answer” which is pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 45 is ineligible.
Claim 46 recites additional element of “wherein different questions and their possible answers are presented on each of a plurality of pages of the analytic method, and wherein these pages are displayed one at the time on a dynamic display device, the method further comprising: displaying on the dynamic display device, concurrently with each of the pages, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the pages is represented as a node and in which the node representing the page currently displayed is highlighted” which are pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 46 is ineligible.
Claim 47 recites additional element of “receiving second user input selecting one of the nodes of the state diagram; and in response to receiving second user input, transitioning to displaying on the dynamic display device the page represented by the selected node” which are pre/post solution activities and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra solution activity does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 47 is ineligible.
Claims 48 and 49-53 recites similar features of claims 37 and 42-47 and therefore rejected for the same rationales. In addition, claims 48 and 49-53 recite additional elements of “computer readable media” and “computing system” which amount to no more than apply the exception using generic computer component and computer and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Using generic computer components and computer to apply an exception also does not provide an inventive concept. Claims 48 and 49-53 are not patent eligible.
Claims 54 and 55-58 recites a computing device with similar features of claims 37 and 42-45 respectively and therefore rejected for the same rationales. In addition, claims 54 and 55-58 recite additional elements of “memory and processor” which amount to no more than apply the exception using generic computer components and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Using generic computer components to apply an exception also does not provide an inventive concept. Claims 54 and 55-58 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 37-44, 48-51 and 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghanbari et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2014/0122109 A1, hereinafter “Ghanbari”)
As to claim 37, Ghanbari teaches a method in a computing system, comprising: accessing a stored analytic method internal representation of an analytic method; presenting one or more questions encoded in the internal representation;(Ghanbari Fig.3A and par [0047] teaches patient may first be asked a question )
for each question among the one or more questions, presenting a plurality of possible answers to the question encoded in the internal representation; (Ghanbari Fig.3B and par [0047] teaches the system may also request additional information form the user)
for each question among the one or more questions, receiving first user input selecting at least one of the presented possible answers to the question (Ghanbari Fig.3B shows selection of “Ashma”) ; identifying a routing target whose association with the combination of answers selected by the first user input is encoded in the internal representation (Ghanbari par [0048] teaches the server analyzes the patient’s response using a natural language processing system to extract key symptoms and aspects of those symptoms) ; and
presenting information whose association with the identified routing target is encoded in the internal representation. (Ghanbari par [0050] teaches providing a stacked rank of possible diagnoses)
As to claim 38, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: for each of a plurality of analytic methods whose internal representations are contained in a repository, displaying descriptive information describing the analytic method (Ghanbari Fig.3F and par [0064] teaches presenting a further summary of likely diagnoses and recommended actions such as calling 911 and saving the supplied information for review by a doctor);
receiving second user input selecting the descriptive information describing a distinguished one of the plurality of analytic methods, wherein the accessed internal representation is of the distinguished analytic method. ( Ghanbari Fig.3F and par [0064] teaches presenting a further summary of likely diagnoses and recommended actions such as calling 911 and saving the supplied information for review by a doctor)
As to claim 39, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 38 wherein the presented information comprises a document that is external to the repository. (Ghanbari par [0067] teaches results of lab tests)
As to claim 40, Ghanbari teaches the method of 37 wherein the presented information comprises one or more additional questions. ( Ghanbari par[0052] teaches targeted set of clarifying questions)
As to claim 41, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: performing an electronic medical record(EMR) action to perform on behalf of a patient for whom the analytic method is being performed whose association with the identified routing target is encoded in the internal representation. (Ghanbari par [0061] teaches at the end of the process, all the patient entered information is available to the clinical to review, verify and make final diagnosis)
As to claim 42, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37 wherein the one or more questions comprise two or more questions. ( Ghanbari par[0052] teaches targeted set of clarifying questions)
As to claim 43, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37 wherein, for a distinguished question among the one or more questions, user input is received selecting at least two of the presented possible answer to the question. (Ghanbari Fig.3B, “female” and “Diabetes “ selected)
As to claim 44, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37 wherein each presented possible answer occupies a display location, and wherein the first user input identifies, for each selected possible answer, the display location occupied by the possible answer. (Ghanbari Fig.3B, “female” and “Diabetes “ selected)
Claims 48, and 49-51 merely recite one or more instances of computer readable media having contents configured to cause a computing system to perform the method of claims 37 and 42-44 respectively. According, Ghanbari teaches every limitation of claims 48 and 49-51 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 37 and 42-44 respectively.
Claims 54, and 55-57 merely recite a computing system to perform the method of claims 37 and 42-44 respectively. According, Ghanbari teaches every limitation of claims 54, and 55-57 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 37 and 42-44 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 45,52 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanbari and further in view of Ponomarev et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2015/0154492 A1, hereinafter “Ponomarev”)
As to claim 45, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37 but fails to teach wherein the one or more questions and the possible answers are presented by outputting synthesized speech audio, and wherein the first user input comprises, for each selected possible answer, speech that at least approximately matches at least a portion of the possible answer.
However, Ponomarev teaches wherein the one or more questions and the possible answers are presented by outputting synthesized speech audio, and wherein the first user input comprises, for each selected possible answer, speech that at least approximately matches at least a portion of the possible answer.(Ponomarev par [0185] teaches the conversation controller receives a user utterance from the microphone , analyzing the user information input signal, retrieving the information output signal including an answer that corresponds to the user utterance sentence from the conversation database information output signals , replaying the information output signal to the speech synthesizer and outputting this answer to the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Ghanbari and Ponomarev to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to enhance interactive communication.(Ponomarev par [007])
As to claim 52, 58, see the above rejection of claim 45.
Claims 46-47 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanbari and further in view of Hirsch et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2014/0098103 A1, hereinafter “Hirsch”)
As to claim 46, Ghanbari teaches the method of claim 37 wherein different questions and their possible answers are presented on each of a plurality of pages of the analytic method, and wherein these pages are displayed one at the time on a dynamic display device (Ghanbari Fig.3A-3C shows “continue, skip and previous” buttons which being interpreted as page),
Ghanbari fails to expressly teach the method further comprising: displaying on the dynamic display device, concurrently with each of the pages, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the pages is represented as a node and in which the node representing the page currently displayed is highlighted.
However, Hirsch teach displaying on the dynamic display device, concurrently with each of the pages, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the pages is represented as a node and in which the node representing the page currently displayed is highlighted. (Hirsch Fig.1 and par [0068] teaches the user can view further information on a particular topic by selecting the corresponding node to display information in the display area 103)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Ghanbari and Hirsch to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide an improved interface for presenting information which visually indicates the relationship and enabling intuitive navigation between related topics.(Hirsch par [0007])
As to claim 47, Ghanbari and Hirsch teach the method of claim 46, further comprising: receiving second user input selecting one of the nodes of the state diagram; and in response to receiving second user input, transitioning to displaying on the dynamic display device the page represented by the selected node. (Hirsch Fig.1 and par [0068] teaches the user can view further information on a particular topic by selecting the corresponding node to display information in the display area 103)
As to claim 53, see the above rejection of claims 46-47.
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 HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights