DETAILED 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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 10/14/25. Claims 13 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are pending.
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 1-12 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 19 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 15-21 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method for generating a predictive model using a neural network, comprising:
receiving a request to schedule an appointment with a medical professional;
accessing patient information associated with a patient;
in response to receiving the request to schedule the appointment, applying a predictive model, generated from historical patient records not associated with the patient, to the patient information to conditionally trigger a recommendation to obtain one or more medical tests prior to the appointment, the recommendation configured to be displayed on a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface including input prompts, wherein the predictive model comprises a machine learning model comprising a neural network, the machine learning model trained to establish a relationship between a plurality of training patient information features and types of medical tests performed based on visits to various types of medical professionals, wherein training the machine learning model with the neural network including adjustable neurons comprises:
obtaining a batch of training data comprising a first set of the plurality of training patient information features associated with a first type of medical test performed based on visits to a first type of medical professional;
processing the first set of the plurality of training patient information features by first inputting the first set of the plurality of training patient information features to an input layer of the neurons in the neural network and then to further layers of the neurons in the neural network to generate an estimated set of medical tests to obtain prior to a given appointment for the first type of medical professional;
computing, using neurons in the neural network, a loss based on a deviation between the estimated set of medical tests and the first type of medical test associated with the first set of the plurality of training patient information features; and
updating one or more parameters of the machine learning model based on the computed loss from the neural network; and
receiving a selection of at least one of the input prompts of the graphical user interface, the selection identifying at least one of the one or more medical tests;
automatically generating a prescription request to perform the at least one of the one or more medical tests;
sending the prescription request to a facility associated with the patient to conduct the at least one of the one or more medical tests; and
changing a display of the graphical user interface to display a confirmation of the sending of the prescription request to the facility.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because receiving a request to schedule an appointment with a medical professional; accessing patient information associated with a patient; in response to receiving the request to schedule the appointment, applying a predictive model, generated from historical patient records not associated with the patient, to the patient information to conditionally trigger a recommendation to obtain one or more medical tests prior to the appointment, to establish a relationship between a plurality of training patient information features and types of medical tests performed based on visits to various types of medical professionals, obtaining a batch of training data comprising a first set of the plurality of training patient information features associated with a first type of medical test performed based on visits to a first type of medical professional; processing the first set of the plurality of training patient information features by first inputting the first set of the plurality of training patient information features to generate an estimated set of medical tests to obtain prior to a given appointment for the first type of medical professional; computing a loss based on a deviation between the estimated set of medical tests and the first type of medical test associated with the first set of the plurality of training patient information features; and updating one or more parameters of the model based on the computed loss; and indicate the recommendation to obtain the one or more medical tests prior to the appointment amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations of receiving a selection, the selection identifying at least one of the one or more medical tests; generating a prescription request to perform the at least one of the one or more medical tests; and sending the prescription request to a facility associated with the patient to conduct the at least one of the one or more medical tests constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of independent claims 1, 19 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a graphical user interface, a display, one or more processors, a memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium used to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or from being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity“ groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the graphical user interface, display, one or more processors, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving information/selection, accessing information, applying a model, obtaining data, processing information, performing calculations, updating data, generating data, sending data, and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of training the machine learning model/neural network, using neurons in the neural network, and a model produced by an artificial neural network. However, these limitations do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-12, 15-18, and 21 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-12, 15-18, and 21 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-12, 15-18, and 21 describe further limitations regarding identifying and selecting one or more medical tests, the professional comprising a primary care physician, the tests comprising bloodwork, that the appointment is an annual checkup, types of patient information, determining that one or more attributes match the generated profile of patients, determining dates of visits, preventing triggering of a recommendation, the request comprising a reason for the appointment, obtaining and processing training information features, computing a loss based on a deviation, updating one or more parameters of the model, receiving feedback, retraining the model, and generating and using a feature vector. Furthermore, claims 15, 16, and 21 recite limitations regarding “machine learning” and/or “neurons in the neural network.” However, these limitations do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to one or more processors/computer readable medium receiving information/input, accessing information, applying a model, and sending a request, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and performing repetitive calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 15-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the artificial neural network" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the input prompts" in lines 30 and 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “a predictive model” to “the predictive model” at lines 5-6 and “a neural network” to “the neural network” at line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The newly added limitations regarding “neurons” and “adjustable neurons” is unclear. Examiner suggests changing “neuron” to “the neurons” in the “computing” step of claims 1, 19, and 20, in the “updating” step of claims 19 & 20, line 2 of claim 15, and line 2 of claim 16. Examiner requests Applicant make the appropriate amendments to clarify whether or not the “neurons” in the “neurons in the neural network” limitations are the same as the “adjustable neurons.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites unclear language “trained by with…” at line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the neural network including adjustable neurons performing comprises” at lines 8-9 is grammatically unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/14/25.
(1) Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are directed to a machine and technology and cannot be performed as mental steps. Claim 1 is similar to Example 47 from the USPTO's updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance to AI Inventions.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. Regarding Example 47, Applicant’s claims are not analogous because claim 1 of Example 47 did not recite a judicial exception, unlike Applicant’s claims. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “a mental process” because receiving a request to schedule an appointment with a medical professional; accessing patient information associated with a patient; in response to receiving the request to schedule the appointment, applying a predictive model, generated from historical patient records not associated with the patient, to the patient information to conditionally trigger a recommendation to obtain one or more medical tests prior to the appointment, to establish a relationship between a plurality of training patient information features and types of medical tests performed based on visits to various types of medical professionals, obtaining a batch of training data comprising a first set of the plurality of training patient information features associated with a first type of medical test performed based on visits to a first type of medical professional; processing the first set of the plurality of training patient information features by first inputting the first set of the plurality of training patient information features to generate an estimated set of medical tests to obtain prior to a given appointment for the first type of medical professional; computing a loss based on a deviation between the estimated set of medical tests and the first type of medical test associated with the first set of the plurality of training patient information features; and updating one or more parameters of the model based on the computed loss; and indicate the recommendation to obtain the one or more medical tests prior to the appointment amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations of receiving a selection, the selection identifying at least one of the one or more medical tests; generating a prescription request to perform the at least one of the one or more medical tests; and sending the prescription request to a facility associated with the patient to conduct the at least one of the one or more medical tests constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the graphical user interface, display, one or more processors, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving information/selection, accessing information, applying a model, obtaining data, processing information, performing calculations, updating data, generating data, sending data, and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of training the machine learning model/neural network, using neurons in the neural network, and a model produced by an artificial neural network. However, these limitations do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687