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 1-36 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. Specifically, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The criteria for determining subject matter eligibility used in the rationales found below are found generally within MPEP § 2106, et seq, and summarized within MPEP § 2106, subsection III. The rationales found below are also formulated and supported using the guidelines found within MPEP § 2106.07, particularly subsection (a).
Claims 1-36 are directed to a method, one or more computer memories, and one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media.
Specifically, claim 1 recites a method in a computing system, comprising: soliciting and receiving first user input describing an analytic method; soliciting and receiving second user input specifying at least one question that is part of the analytic method; for each question specified by the second user input, soliciting and receiving third user input specifying a possible answer to the question; for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input, soliciting and receiving fourth user input specifying a routing target associated with the combination; and persistently storing an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method encoding the first, second, third, and fourth user input.
Claim 19 recites one or more computer memories collectively storing an analytic method definition data structure, the data structure comprising: first information describing an analytic method; second information specifying at least one question that is part of the analytic method; for each question specified by the second information, third information specifying a possible answer to the question; and for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third information about, fourth information specifying a routing target associated with the combination, such that the contents of the data structure are usable to perform the analytic method for a user on behalf of a patient.
Claim 27 recites one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media collectively having contents configured to cause a computing system to perform a method, the method comprising: soliciting and receiving first user input describing an analytic method; soliciting and receiving second user input specifying at least one question that is part of the analytic method; for each question specified by the second user input, soliciting and receiving third user input specifying a possible answer to the question; for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input, soliciting and receiving fourth user input specifying a routing target associated with the combination; and persistently storing an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method encoding the first, second, third, and fourth user input.
MPEP § 2106.03, subsection II states that “As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Like the other steps in the eligibility analysis, evaluation of this step should be made after determining what the inventor has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).”
With regard to claims 1-36, Examiner finds that these claims are properly directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention and therefore are statutory. (Step 1: YES)
MPEP § 2106.03, subsection II, also states that “[I]t is a best practice for the examiner to point out the BRI and recommend an amendment, if possible, that would narrow the claim to those embodiments that fall within a statutory category”. Examiner suggests that the “computer-readable media” be amended to recite “non-transitory computer-readable media” which would remove the rejection.
MPEP § 2106, subsection III, describes step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis (“Step 2A”) which is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014).
MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II(A) further instructs that “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. Step 2A asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? In the context of the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A determines whether:
• The claim as a whole is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis; or
• The claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.”
MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II(A)(1) also further states that “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.”
Regarding Prong One, collectively, the claimed concept is merely focused on, at best, collecting, storing, and processing information.
As such, Examiner finds that the claimed concept is merely drawn to the enumerated grouping of mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, the claimed concept contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, these claims are directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II(A)(2) states that “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an “inventive concept”)”.
As such, the following explanation integrates the analysis of whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as prescribed within MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), subsection I, 2106.04(d)(2).
Regarding Prong Two, claim 1 recites a method “in a computing system” and claim 27 recites “[o]ne or more instances of computer-readable media collectively having contents configured to cause a computing system to perform a method”, both of which additionally recite the specific context of the judicial exception by way of the recitations of “soliciting and receiving first user input describing an analytic method; soliciting and receiving second user input specifying at least one question that is part of the analytic method; for each question specified by the second user input, soliciting and receiving third user input specifying a possible answer to the question; for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input, soliciting and receiving fourth user input specifying a routing target associated with the combination; and persistently storing an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method encoding the first, second, third, and fourth user input”.
Claim 19 similarly recites “[o]ne or more computer memories collectively storing an analytic method definition data structure” which also additionally recites the specific context of the judicial exception by way of the recitations of “first information describing an analytic method; second information specifying at least one question that is part of the analytic method; for each question specified by the second information, third information specifying a possible answer to the question; and for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third information about, fourth information specifying a routing target associated with the combination, such that the contents of the data structure are usable to perform the analytic method for a user on behalf of a patient”.
In view of the above additional recitations, such generically specified elements fail to amount to significantly more as they amount to a computing environment that, at best, are performed on a generic computer which performs the querying (ie. “soliciting”) of “user input” of various types that are determined by and provided by a human user, performing generic logic-based processing of such “user input” by generally inferring “at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input” and storing the “user input” for storage “encoded” in an “internal representation” or, in the case of claim 19, within a generic data structure. Use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) since the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements, at best, are indicative of a computerized environment that, at best,. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Such does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Also, the steps of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). While claims 19-26 do not expressly recite such limitations, they nonetheless implicate such given their recitations of “information” to which the data structure is comprised.
MPEP § 2106.04(d), subsection II additionally instructs that each claim be examined for eligibility separately, based on the particular elements recited therein.
In accordance therewith, Examiner finds that the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising accessing the stored analytic method internal representation; presenting the at least one question specified by the second user input; for each question specified by the second user input, presenting the possible answers specified for the question by the third user input; receiving fifth user input selecting, for each of the at least one question specified by the second user input, at least one of the presented possible answers specified for the question; identifying a routing target specified by the fourth user input that is associated with the combination of answers selected by the fifth user input; and presenting information associated with the identified routing target. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic storage access, displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic rule-based logic and processing and, given the rationale above, therefore do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of the “receiving” the information are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the method of claim 2 wherein the presenting presents visual information on a dynamic display device, and wherein the presentation of each possible answer occurs at a particular display location on the display device, and wherein the fifth user input comprises, for each selected possible answer, the display location at which presentation of the possible answer occurs. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of the reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the method of claim 2 wherein the presenting presents audio information via an audio output device, and wherein the fifth user input comprises, for each selected possible answer, speech that at least approximately matches at least a portion of the possible answer. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic audio processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic computer-based microphone and speakers and, given the rationale above, therefore do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of the reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising: for a distinguished question among the at least one question specified by the second user input, receiving fifth user input specifying that more than one of the possible answers specified by the third user input for the distinguished question may be simultaneously specified by a consumer applying the analytic method. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data reception) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment and, given the rationale above, therefore do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the method of claim 1 wherein the first, second, third, and fourth user input is encoded as part of a first page of the analytic method, and wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth user input specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises a second page of the analytic method distinct from the first page. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data manipulation and addressing and also generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data structuring and encoding algorithms and paradigms and also data analysis and logic-based determinations, therefore, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites the method of claim 1 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth user input specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises a document that is not part of the analytic method. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data analysis and logic-based determinations, which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites the method of claim 1 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth user input specifies a routing target, the fourth user input comprises content responsive to the distinguished combination of answers. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data reception) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites the method of claim 8 wherein, for the distinguished combination of answers, the fourth user input comprises fifth user input specifying (a) a position in the responsive content, and (b) additional content that is to be presented during presentation of the responsive content only when a compact indication of the additional content occurring at the specified position is selected. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and particular displaying paradigms which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites the method of claim 1 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth user input specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data analysis and logic-based determinations, which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, the “routing target” ostensibly to “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity since the “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim or, alternatively, amounts to an insignificant application.
Claim 11 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising: soliciting and receiving fifth user input identifying two or more of the at least one question specified by the second user input whose answers are to be considered together; and in response to receiving the fifth user input, displaying a two-dimensional grid whose first dimension is divided into first sections each corresponding to a possible answer specified by the third user input for one of the identified questions, wherein the fourth user input is received with respect to the displayed two-dimensional grid, and wherein the stored analytic method internal representation further encodes the fifth user input. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms and storage encoding in an “internal representation”, which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites the method of claim 11 wherein the fourth user input comprises: for each of a plurality of second sections into which the grid's second dimension is divided: sixth user input selecting points at the intersection of the second section and first sections corresponding to one of the combinations of possible answers specified by the fourth user input, and seventh user input specifying with respect to the second section the routing target specified for the specified combination of answer by the fourth user input. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment including, at best, further defining the “user input” which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 7 wherein, for a first distinguished one of the second sections, the seventh user input identifying a second distinguished one of the second sections whose routing target is to be duplicated for the common nation of possible answers represented by the first distinguished one of the second sections. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment including, at best, further defining the “user input” which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites the method of claim 1 wherein the first, second, third, and fourth user input is received and encoded for each of a plurality of pages of the analytic method, the pages being connected by pages links, at least one of the page links corresponding to a routing target specified a combination of possible answers, the method further comprising: displaying, concurrently with the soliciting and receiving, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the plurality of pages is represented as a node and each page link is represented as an edge. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the method of claim 14, further comprising: during receipt of the first, second, third, or fourth user input for a distinguished page, highlighting the node of the state diagram visualization representing the distinguished page. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites the method of claim 14 wherein one of the plurality of pages is a first page that begins the analytic method, the method further comprising: during receipt of the first, second, third, or fourth user input for a distinguished page, highlighting nodes of the state diagram visualization on a path from the node representing the first page to the node representing the distinguished page. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving fifth user input selecting a node of the state diagram representation; and in response to receiving the fifth user input, soliciting first, second, third, or fourth user input for the page represented by the selected node. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving fifth user input interacting with a distinguished node of the state diagram representation; and in response to receiving the fifth user input, modifying the analytic model internal representation to no longer encode the first, second, third, and fourth user input received for the page represented by the distinguished node. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein the contents of the data structure are encoded in a markup language. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment which is, at best, a more specific way of data encoding which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 21 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth information specifies a routing target, the fourth information comprises content responsive to the distinguished combination of answers. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data association) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 22 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 21, the data structure further comprising: fifth information that (a) specifies a position within the responsive content and (b) specifies supplemental content that relates to a portion of the responsive content at the specified position. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and particular displaying paradigms which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 23 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein the data structure contains the first, second, third, and fourth information for each of a first page of the analytic method and a second page of the analytic method, and wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth information for the first page specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises the second page. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data manipulation and addressing and also generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data structuring and encoding algorithms and paradigms and also data analysis and logic-based determinations, therefore, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 24 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth information specifies a routing target, the fourth information comprises a document external to the data structure. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data analysis and logic-based determinations, which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 25 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth information specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being performed. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data analysis and logic-based determinations, which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, the “routing target” ostensibly to “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity since the “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim or, alternatively, amounts to an insignificant application.
Claim 26 recites the one or more computer memories of claim 19 wherein the fourth information specifies a routing target associated with a combination of answers to multiple questions specified by the second information. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data association) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 28 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27, the method further comprising: accessing the stored analytic method internal representation; presenting the at least one question specified by the second user input; for each question specified by the second user input, presenting the possible answers specified for the question by the third user input; receiving fifth user input selecting, for each of the at least one question specified by the second user input, at least one of the presented possible answers specified for the question; identifying a routing target specified by the fourth user input that is associated with the combination of answers selected by the fifth user input; and presenting information associated with the identified routing target. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic storage access, displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic rule-based logic and processing and, given the rationale above, therefore do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of the “receiving” the information are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 29 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27, the method further comprising: for a distinguished question among the at least one question specified by the second user input, receiving fifth user input specifying that more than one of the possible answers specified by the third user input for the distinguished question may be simultaneously specified by a consumer applying the analytic method. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic data reception) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment and, given the rationale above, therefore do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of reception of the “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 30 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27 wherein, for a distinguished combination of answers for which the fourth user input specifies a routing target, the specified routing target comprises an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic computerized processing) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic data analysis and logic-based determinations, which, given the rationale above, do not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, the “routing target” ostensibly to “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity since the “an EMR action to perform on behalf of the patient for whom the analytic method is being applied” is incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim or, alternatively, amounts to an insignificant application.
Claim 31 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27, the method further comprising: soliciting and receiving fifth user input identifying two or more of the at least one question specified by the second user input whose answers are to be considered together; and in response to receiving the fifth user input, displaying a two-dimensional grid whose first dimension is divided into first sections each corresponding to a possible answer specified by the third user input for one of the identified questions, wherein the fourth user input is received with respect to the displayed two-dimensional grid, and wherein the stored analytic method internal representation further encodes the fifth user input. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms and storage encoding in an “internal representation”, which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 32 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 31 wherein the fourth user input comprises: for each of a plurality of second sections into which the grid's second dimension is divided: sixth user input selecting points at the intersection of the second section and first sections corresponding to one of the combinations of possible answers specified by the fourth user input, and seventh user input specifying with respect to the second section the routing target specified for the specified combination of answer by the fourth user input. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment including, at best, further defining the “user input” which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 33 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 32 wherein, for a first distinguished one of the second sections, the seventh user input identifying a second distinguished one of the second sections whose routing target is to be duplicated for the common nation of possible answers represented by the first distinguished one of the second sections. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment including, at best, further defining the “user input” which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Claim 34 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 27 wherein the first, second, third, and fourth user input is received and encoded for each of a plurality of pages of the analytic method, the pages being connected by pages links, at least one of the page links corresponding to a routing target specified a combination of possible answers, the method further comprising: displaying, concurrently with the soliciting and receiving, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the plurality of pages is represented as a node and each page link is represented as an edge. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 35 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 34, the method further comprising: during receipt of the first, second, third, or fourth user input for a distinguished page, highlighting the node of the state diagram visualization representing the distinguished page. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 36 recites the one or more instances of non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 34, the method further comprising: receiving fifth user input selecting a node of the state diagram representation; and in response to receiving the fifth user input, soliciting first, second, third, or fourth user input for the page represented by the selected node. However, these steps merely involve the use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions (ie. by generic displaying and receiving information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion) such that the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception and fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). They are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, again, the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In view of the rationales provided above, collectively, the claims do not appear to add anything significant to the judicial exception and therefore the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the judicial exception identified above and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. (Step 2A: YES)
MPEP § 2106.05, subsection II instructs that “As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Like the other steps in the eligibility analysis, evaluation of this step should be made after determining what the inventor has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation…Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).”
After carrying over the determinations and conclusions from Step 2A, Prong Two and performing a re-evaluation of whether the claims’ limitations individually or as a whole would reasonably be considered to be an inventive concept, Examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept. Specifically, in view of the same rationales provided above, the claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or the technology or technical field, the judicial exception is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, the claims do not otherwise include other meaningful limitations, the additional elements fail to amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, the additional elements fail to add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), 2106.05(e)-(h).
MPEP § 2106.05(d) also further instructs that another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
In its most basic form, the claimed concept envisions and embodies any sort of well-understood, routine, conventional informational association and presentation through generic data referential and graphical user interface techniques. Here, the claimed concept, at best, gathers “user input”/”information” which is encoded and stored in a data structure in a particular structure which references other information through “routing targets” which is otherwise interpreted as a generic data associative technique in order to associate the “user input”/”information” with itself or other information such as “answers” to “questions” that is part of a generically specified “analytic method”. Furthermore, the “analytic method” which appears to be the core concept of the claimed invention appears to be something a user could even do mentally given the requirement that it be merely specified by “user input” which Examiner finds to be well within the judicial exception. The prior art is replete with such examples, some of which are cited in this instant action. See, e.g., US 5583758 A to McIlroy et al; US 8738617 B2 to Brown et al; US 20180121603 A1 to Devarakonda et al; and US 20180174669 A1 to Lazaryev et al.
Even in consideration of “encoding” such information, the specification at paragraph 0076 as published discloses that “Table 1 below shows an internal representation generated by the facility in JSON for the example analytic method whose creation is shown in FIGS. 4-20 and discussed above”. JSON, aka. “JavaScript Object Notation” is well-known and used as a computerized information encoding technique and, as such, would have been a well-understood, routine, conventional concept in the context of the claimed invention as well as computerized data storage and analysis in general, as evidenced by US 9996664 B2 to Lloyd et al.
When considered as a whole, the claimed concept is recited in such a generically specified manner that the claims simply do not convey any sort of inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception. therefore, Examiner finds that the additional elements were well-understood, routine, conventional before the effective filing date of these claims and do not involve anything that could be construed to be a technological improvement.
MPEP § 2106.05, subsection II instructs that Examiners should examine each claim for eligibility separately, based on the particular elements recited therein. In accordance with these instructions, Examiner finds that the dependent claims also fail to provide any sort of inventive concept. Again, after reconsideration of whether the claims’ limitations individually or as a whole would reasonably be considered to be an inventive concept as explained in Step 2A, Prong Two, Examiner finds that they are not in view of the explanations with regards to the dependent claims above. Also, the dependent claims, at best, further define the additional elements that were well-understood, routine, conventional and, as such, do not involve anything that could be construed to be a technological improvement for the same reasons as explained above for the independent claims.
Therefore, Examiner finds that the additional elements recited within the claims do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. (Step 2B: NO)
In conclusion, claims 1-36 are directed to ineligible subject matter, namely an abstract idea without significantly more, and are therefore rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the instant response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the § 101 rejections of claims 1-36 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, after reviewing Applicant’s arguments, Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP § 2106, subsection II which largely forms the basis for both Examiner’s analysis and response below.
MPEP § 2106, subsection II states that “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions…Evaluating eligibility based on the BRI also ensures that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not depend simply on the draftsman’s art…See MPEP § 2111 for more information about determining the BRI…Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility…With regard to the second criterion for eligibility, the Alice/Mayo test, claim interpretation can affect the first part of the test (whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception)…Claim interpretation can also affect the second part of the Alice/Mayo test (whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).” (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
Also, Applicant repeatedly refers to “specific technical features” which, presumably, are the additional recitations of the claims. Examiner will approach the below response with this assumed correspondence.
Applicant argues that “The Examiner has alleged that the claims are directed to ‘collecting, storing, and processing information’ and categorized them as mental processes. This characterization does not account for the specific technical features recited in the claims”.
However, this summarization is part of Examiner’s Step 2A, Prong One analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) (“Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea 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 listed above”) This summarization is this identification of the specific limitation(s) in the claim that are found to recite the abstract idea without consideration of the additional limitations which occurs within Step 2A, Prong Two and 2B separately and respectively within the eligibility analysis rationale.
Therefore, this statement mischaracterizes the finding that the claimed invention is within a specifically enumerated category of abstract ideas to which the claimed invention is drawn as previously explained. Stating that this characterization “does not account for the specific technical features recited in the claims” fails to consider that the “specific technical features” that Applicant appears to be pointing to are treated in later steps of the eligibility analysis.
Applicant then argues that “Claim 1 recites "persistently storing an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method encoding the first, second, third, and fourth user input." This is not merely storing information - it is creating a specific data structure that encodes questions, possible answers, and routing targets associated with combinations of answers in a manner that enables computational execution. By representing medical knowledge as an analytic method in this manner, 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. The claims thus transform medical knowledge from a form that cannot be computationally executed into a structured internal representation that can be computationally executed.”
However, Applicant fails to consider that Examiner is required to consider the claims in their broadest reasonable interpretation which was applied when performing the eligibility analysis. Merely “persistently storing” the “user input(s)” in “an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method”, especially given Applicant’s characterization of the limitations as being “a specific data structure that encodes questions, possible answers, and routing targets associated with combinations of answers in a manner that enables computational execution”, does not avail Applicant of the requirement to claim such limitations. All that is required is to “persistently store” the “user input(s)” within “an analytic method internal representation of the analytic method” that is merely claimed to “encode” the inputs without more. As previously explained, such a generic “internal representation”, which does not even require a data structure as argued by Applicant, involve anything more than the use of a generic computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions fails to amount to more than amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) since the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Applicant then further argues, inter alia, that “The "analytic method internal representation" recited in claim 1 is not a generic data structure” in that “The specification describes a specific JSON-based structure for the internal representation” along with its alleged benefits. However, Examiner cannot import limitations from the specification into the claims. See MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II. Just because the specification recites such a specific example of such an “internal representation” does not require such an interpretation be applied to the claims, nor are any of Applicant’s asserted benefits specifically claimed.
Applicant also argues that ‘The claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical improvement. The facility improves the functioning of computer or other hardware, such as by reducing the dynamic display area, processing, storage, and data transmission resources needed to perform a certain task, thereby enabling the task to be performed by less capable, capacious, or expensive hardware devices, or be performed with lesser latency, or preserving more of the conserved resources for use in performing other tasks as set forth in the present specification. By concentrating easily applied medical knowledge in a central repository of analytic methods, the facility reduces the network and processing resources that would otherwise have been used to search for, retrieve, evaluate, and seek to apply conventional sources of medical knowledge. Also, by using a compact internal representation of analytic methods, the facility reduces the amount of storage that would otherwise have been used to store less data-efficient conventional sources of medical knowledge.”
However, again, none of these supposed benefits are required in the claim recitations.
Applicant argues other limitations of claim 1, specifically “Claim 1 recites "for each of at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input, soliciting and receiving fourth user input specifying a routing target associated with the combination." This routing based on answer combinations is a specific technical mechanism that enables the computational application of medical knowledge, not a mental process.”
However, Applicant improperly conflates the additional limitations considered in Step 2A, Prong Two with the determination of the judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong One. In any case, Applicant’s argument amounts to an admission that use of a general computer and its associated elements is being used. As previously explained, this amounts to simply invoking such “computational application” which fails to tip the scale towards a practical application beyond this use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to “solicit and receive” such “user input”.
Applicant also argues that “Claim 2 further recites "identifying a routing target specified by the fourth user input that is associated with the combination of answers selected by the fifth user input; and presenting information associated with the identified routing target." This demonstrates the practical application of the internal representation - the system computationally identifies and presents relevant medical information based on the structured routing logic”. However, again, as previously explained, this amounts to nothing more than performing respective generic functionality (ie, by generic storage access, displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface) and processing the information in a generic fashion and are merely, at best, further indicative of the generically specified computerized environment using, at best, generic rule-based logic and processing. None of Applicant’s argument treats these findings.
Applicant then argues for claims 14 and 19 that “claim 19 recites "one or more computer memories collectively storing an analytic method definition data structure" containing structured information "such that the contents of the data structure are usable to perform the analytic method for a user on behalf of a patient." This is a specific technical data structure with a defined purpose, not merely stored information. The dependent claims further demonstrate the technical nature of the claims. Claim 14 recites "displaying, concurrently with the soliciting and receiving, a state diagram visualization of the analytic method in which each of the plurality of pages is represented as a node and each page link is represented as an edge." This concurrent visualization provides real-time feedback during creation of the analytic method, which is a specific technical feature.” However, again, none of these arguments actually appears to consider the rationales previously provided for these claims under Step 2A, Prong Two. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 19 are unpersuasive since they do no more than point to the statutory category claim 19 is embodied to argue that such shows a technical improvement. However, as is reasonably clear, “one or more computer memories” that “collectively stor[e]” a “data structure, even the supposedly specific “analytic method definition data structure”, are only general computerized components and elements in their generic form.
As for claim 14, Examiner can only point to the rationale provided for claim 14 which explained that the additional limitations amounted to no more than generic displaying and receiving such information from a generic user interface and processing the information in a generic fashion and generic graphical user interface interactions and display paradigms in conjunction with storage encoding and data structure pointers which, given the rationale above, therefore does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Also, Examiner again notes that the recitations of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, something that Applicant fails to address in the instant response in any form.
Finally, Applicant argues that “The claims are distinguishable from Electric Power Group cited by the Examiner. Unlike claims to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results, the present claims recite a specific internal representation structure that encodes routing targets for combinations of answers, enabling computational execution of medical knowledge. The claims do not merely collect and display information because they create a computable representation that transforms how medical knowledge is stored and applied. Claims 1-36 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing specific technical improvements to how medical knowledge is computationally represented, stored, and applied.”
Examiner submits for the record that the only mention of the Electric Power decision is within Step 2A, Prong One, regarding the determination of whether the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, not to whether the additional limitations amount to a technical improvement as determined in Step 2A, Prong Two, therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found to be misplaced with regards to the application of Electric Power. In any case, in view of these arguments as they apply to the findings of Step 2A, Prong Two, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons explained above. Applicant’s argument largely ignore and otherwise appear to corroborate the findings in the rejections regarding that, collectively, the claims do not appear to add anything significant to the judicial exception and therefore the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The arguments conflate much of the disclosure’s supposed disclosed benefits and improperly applies these summarizations to the actual claim required limitations which are much broader in scope.
In terms of court decisions, one particular example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Examiner reiterates the positions of record here given Applicant’s assertions of specific analysis.
As previously explained, the generically specified elements fail to amount to significantly more as they amount to a computing environment that, at best, are performed on a generic computer which performs the querying (ie. “soliciting”) of “user input” of various types that are determined by and provided by a human user, performing generic logic-based processing of such “user input” by generally inferring “at least some combinations of one or more of the possible answers specified by the third user input” and storing the “user input” for storage “encoded” in an “internal representation” or, in the case of claim 19, within a generic data structure. Use of a computer and its associated elements in their ordinary capacity to perform their respective generic functions fails to amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) since the claims merely invoke a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements, at best, are indicative of a computerized environment that, at best,. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Such does not reasonably constitute an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also, the steps of “soliciting” and “receiving” “user input” are deemed to amount to mere data gathering and therefore add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). While claims 19-26 do not expressly recite such limitations, they nonetheless implicate such given their recitations of “information” to which the data structure is comprised.
Therefore, the findings in the TLI decision largely mirror the ones found here. For the reasons already explained, Examiner continues to find that the claims fail to recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, something that the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis treats in depth as the above summary explains.
In sum, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive to remove the 101 rejection of record. While they are updated to reflect the minor claim amendments in response to other issues, the thrust of the rejection is otherwise maintained.
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 G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459