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 .
Claims 1-10, 21-25, 41-45 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 21, and 41 are independent.
This Application was published as US20230334263A1.
Apparent priority: 4/13/2022 through PRO 63/330586.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: [39] calls for element 200, which is not in figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10, 21-25, and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed at an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 21, and 45, the limitation(s) of “analyzing a transcript”, “retrieving supplemental data”, “generating a machine-readable message”, and “transmitting the machine-readable message”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. More specifically, a human reading a transcript of a conversation and summarizing it and identifying key actions and people. Going to a filing cabinet and grabbing additional information pertaining to the transcript, but missing. Writing down a message disclosing the action items and additional information. The human delivering the message to the target person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the --Mental Processes-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a processor and memory, reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using [178-185] in the specification. Additionally, the NLP system reads on a human analyzing conversations, gathering additional information, and creating messages. 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 claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to analyze, retrieve, generate, and transmit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2, 22, and 42, the claim(s) recite(s) the identified entity is not in the conversation, which reads on the conversation not including the person being discussed. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 3, 23, and 43, the claim(s) recite(s) the system is an EMR database, which reads on the message format that the human must deliver. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 4, 24, and 44, the claim(s) recite(s) the identified identity is not in the conversation, is a service provider, and the message is formatted for their intake system, which reads on a human seeing that the transcript deals with a service provider and creating a referral request that matches the intake requirements. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 5, 25, and 45, the claim(s) recite(s) the identified entity is a responsible entity where the message is a pre-approval message, which reads on the transcript dealing with an entity such as a caregiver, insurance provider, or similar and the message is formatted as a pre-approval request. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 6, the claim(s) recite(s) sending the request to the entity during the conversation, receiving a reply denying the message with a request for an alternative, which reads on a human, during the conversation, going to ask the entity to look at the message. The entity denying it, and going back to the conversation to tell the patient and provider that an alternative approach is required. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 7, the claim(s) recite(s) the entity is a good supplier and the message is an order, which reads on a human understanding the entity is a supplier and creating a message to order a product. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 8, the claim(s) recite(s) the entity is a caretaker and the message involves a calendar invite, which reads on a human creating a note that has a date for an appointment and giving it to a caretaker. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 9, the claim(s) recite(s) the supplemental data is requested for to clarify a term based on a confidence value, supplying a missing value, and selecting one of a list of ambiguous terms for inclusion, which reads on a human adding additional information to the message if they think something need clarifying, if the human needs to fill in a missing item like the patients data of birth, and/or there is a non-well-known term that needs additional information to make sense of it. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 10, the claim(s) recite(s) the action items are created by the NLP system based on terminology and context from the transcript, which reads on a human determining action items based on terms used and the context in the conversation. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10, 21-22, and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patrick Leonard (US PG-Pub No. US 20180018966 A1), hereinafter Leonard.
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 41, Leonard teaches:
(Claim 21) A system ([15] A system), comprising:
a processor ([17] One or more computer processors); and
a memory including instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations ([15] A computer memory storage module configured to store executable computer programming code.) comprising:
(Claim 41) A memory device including instructions that when executed by a processor perform operations ([17] A non-transitory, tangible machine-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program contains machine-readable instructions that when executed electronically by one or more computer processors, perform) comprising:
(Claim 1) A method ([06] A method.), comprising:
analyzing a transcript of a conversation, by a Natural Language Processing (NLP) system, to generate a summary of the conversation in a human-readable format, the summary including action items associated with an identified entity ([06] Analyzing the interaction, wherein analyzing includes specific items from the interaction; and generating an output information that includes a summary of the interaction, and action to be taken by the patient and/or the provider in response to the specific item.);
retrieving, by the NLP system from a supplemental data source (), supplemental data associated with the action item that are lacking in the transcript ([08] Analyzing the processed information further comprises: understanding the content of the processed information; and optionally enriching the processed information with additional information from a database.);
generating, by the NLP system, a machine-readable message based on the action item and the supplemental data ([34] Some embodiments use the enriched raw information for interpretation as disclosed herein to generate an output information from the enriched raw information. [41] Will generate an output information that comprises a summary and details of the interaction which can be entered into the EHR system automatically or manually or used elsewhere.); and
transmitting the machine-readable message to a system associated with the identified entity ([41] Output information… can be entered into the EHR system automatically or manually or used elsewhere [44] Transmitting them.).
Regarding claims 2, 22, and 42, Leonard discloses the limitations of claims 1, 21, and 41, and further teaches:
wherein the identified entity is not a participant in the conversation ([97-99] It identifies "Walgreens" as a place and "we" as a group of people, in this case the patient's family. The primary computing device will generate an output information that will have at least the following attributes: record for the patient that the prescription was sent to the Walgreens at 123 Main Street; Walgreens was not in the conversation.).
Regarding claim 7, Leonard discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein the identified entity is a supplier associated with goods identified in the action items, wherein the machine-readable message is an order form for the goods supplemented with order details for a participant of the conversation ([97-99] It identifies "Walgreens" as a place and "we" as a group of people, in this case the patient's family. Based on the analysis in this example, the primary computing device will generate an output information that will have at least the following attributes: record for the patient that the prescription was sent to the Walgreens at 123 Main Street; create a reminder to pick up the prescription; include a map showing the location and driving direction; enrich the results with additional information, for example details about the medication.).
Regarding claim 8, Leonard discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein the identified entity is a caretaker for a participant of the conversation ([46] System is the ability to easily share information with family and other caregivers.),
wherein the caretaker is identified via a patient record for the participant ([73] Other caregivers or other people as selected according to the privacy requirements of the patient.),
wherein the machine-readable message is associated with a caretaker-identified calendaring application ([74] Based on the provider asking the patient to make an appointment during their interaction, the system may generate a calendar reminder entry to be transmitted to the calendar input of the patient's computing or mobile device. [46] Easily share information with family and other caregivers.).
Regarding claim 9, Leonard discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the supplemental data are requested from a participant of the conversation by the NLP system for at least one of:
clarifying a term in the transcript with a transcription confidence below a threshold value ([90] A confidence score 102 is applied against the intent to identify whether the intent has been applied within the processed information and other decisions made by the artificial intelligence are scored and highlighted to facilitate faster human review and confirmation by patient, provider or other reviewers when necessary.);
supplying a value missing from the transcript for an element of the action items ([90] The output information 112 can be compared with earlier output information for the particular patient such as previous patient provider visit 120 to populate follow up/action items 118. For example, visits may be compiled to compare Intents and entities over the course of two or more interactions to identify trends, inconsistencies, consistencies, and the like.); and
selecting one of a list of ambiguous terms for inclusion in the action item ([109] The system also enriches the information by adding further details that may be useful to the patient. For example, the patient can tap on the word ibuprofen and get full medication information including side effects.).
Regarding claim 10, Leonard discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the action items are created by the NLP system based on terminology and context from the transcript ([06] Analyzing the interaction, wherein analyzing includes specific items from the interaction; and generating an output information that includes a summary of the interaction, and action to be taken by the patient and/or the provider in response to the specific item.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 23, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard, in view of Uhl et al. (US PG-Pub No. US 20230153539 A1), hereinafter Uhl.
Regarding claims 3, 23, and 43, Leonard discloses the limitations of claims 2, 22, and 42, and further teaches:
the machine-readable message is formatted as an EMR message ([41] Output information… can be entered into the EHR system automatically or manually or used elsewhere; EMR message is information that can be entered into a record system.).
Leonard does disclose the identified entity and system as taught in claim 1 and discloses communicating with other providers, but does not disclose that the identity could be a database of an EMR. However, Uhl teaches:
wherein the system is an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) database ([115] A third-party resource, such as an EHR (electronic health records).).
Leonard and Uhl are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in workflow management in a hospital environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the identified entity with one of an electronic health record system. It would be obvious to combine the references as it allows patient/provider message to flow directly to a third party database for enhanced efficiency and accuracy [Uhl Abstract] and improved integration [Uhl 03].
Claim(s) 4, 24, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard, in view of Jancsary et al. (US PG-Pub No. US 20220254485 A1), hereinafter Jancsary.
Regarding claims 4, 24, and 44, Leonard discloses the limitations of claims 2, 22, and 42, but fails to teach the limitations of claims 4, 24, and 44 as it does not disclose referrals. However, Jancsary teaches:
further comprising:
identifying a referral discussion in the transcript ([250] Medical intelligence process 56 may process 1004 the gathered encounter information (e.g., gathered encounter information 624) via artificial intelligence to determine whether a third-party encounter should be initiated.);
wherein the identified entity is a service provider not associated with participants of the conversation ([247] Provide guidance concerning third-party encounters for review by a medical professional; hence not in conversation.) that is identified via at least one of the referral discussion in the transcript ([255] Additionally/alternatively, medical intelligence process 56 may automatically initiate 1012 the third-party encounter if it is determined that the third-party encounter should be initiated.) and a referral list associated with at least one of the participants of the conversation (Additionally,/alternatively, the medical entity (e.g., user 542) may be enabled to specify a particular third-party provider (e.g., from the list of available third-party entities).),
wherein the machine-readable message is referral request formatted according to an intake system associated with the service provider ([256] When automatically initiating 1012 the third-party encounter if it is determined that the third-party encounter should be initiated, medical intelligence process 56 may determine 1014 whether third-party entity 668 (e.g., a dermatologist and/or an oncologist) is available to timely participate in the third-party encounter); inherent as it is automatically communicating with the 3rd party system.).
Leonard and Jancsary are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in workflow management in a hospital environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the identified entity and messaging system with one that deals with third parties in Jancsary. It would be obvious to combine the references as being able to quickly communicate with medical professionals decreases the waiting time and driving time of patients, especially for specialist referrals [Jancsary 04].
Claim(s) 5, 25, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard, in view of Sine et al. (US PG-Pub US 20230316407 A1), hereinafter Sine.
Regarding claims 5, 25, and 45, Leonard discloses the limitations of claims 2, 22, and 42, and further teaches:
wherein the identified entity is a responsible entity associated with a second entity of the conversation via a record maintained by a first entity in the conversation for the second entity ([67] The secondary computing device 18 can be a remote computer, tablet, smart phone, mobile device or other computing device controlled by a caregiver or any other person who may directly or indirectly be involved in the care of the patient. [27] the user can be a caregiver, family member of the patient, friend of the patient, an advocate for the patient, or anyone or anything else capable of adding context to the interaction between a patient and a provider, or any person or system facilitating patient's communication with the provider. [46] With appropriate security and privacy controls) with other caregivers.),
…for a second action item discussed in the transcript ([17] based upon the interpretation of the raw information comprising a summary of the interaction, and follow-up actions; action items.).
Leonard does not teach:
wherein machine-readable message is a pre-approval request.
However, Sine teaches:
wherein machine-readable message is a pre-approval request ([42] The treatment request may be received electronically (including in digital format) and/or any other communication transmission.)…
Leonard and Sine are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in workflow management in a hospital environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the message with that of a pre-approval request. It would be obvious to combine the references as being able to quickly deal with a request that involves treatment requests or insurance improves efficiency of time and resources of medical staff and the patient [Sine 03].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard, in view of Sine, in further view of Jancsary.
Regarding claims 6, Leonard discloses the limitations of claims 5, and further teaches:
generating a third action item ([90] Then the processed information is searched again for the next Intent 110 and the analyses starts again to apply Entities; next action item is created.)…
However, Leonard fails to teach:
sending the pre-approval request to the responsible entity while the conversation is ongoing;
receiving a reply from the responsible entity denying the pre-approval request; and
…while the conversation is ongoing to prompt the first entity to propose an alternative to the second action item.
However, Sine teaches:
sending the pre-approval request to the responsible entity ([42] The treatment request may be received electronically (including in digital format) and/or any other communication transmission.)…;
receiving a reply from the responsible entity denying the pre-approval request ([49] It is determined whether prescription is approved by the medical insurance provider. [50] If the prescription is not approved, it is determined if an alternative is indicated. See decision 412. If no, then feedback is provided back to the medical provider. See operation 414.); and
…to prompt the first entity to propose an alternative to the second action item ([50] If no, then… a request for alternative treatment. See operation 414.).
The motivation to combine is the same as claim 5.
Leonard, in view of Sine, does not teach:
…while the conversation is ongoing…
However, Jancsary teaches:
…while the conversation is ongoing ([256] medical intelligence process 56 may determine 1014 whether third-party entity 668 (e.g., a dermatologist and/or an oncologist) is available to join the medical encounter (e.g., the telehealth medical encounter) immediately (or within a reasonable amount of time).)…
Leonard, Sine and Jancsary are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in workflow management in a hospital environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the messaging service of Leonard with the ongoing conversation ability of Jancsary. It would be obvious to combine the references as being able to quickly communicate with medical professionals decreases the waiting time and driving time of patients, especially for specialist referrals. Additionally, it allows for a timely response from the 3rd party as they can be involved while the meeting between the doctor and patient is ongoing which further improves communication in the medical environment [Jancsary 04 & 256].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahmed et al. (US PG-Pub No. US 20220270612 A1), hereinafter Ahmed, discloses adding and updating agenda/ action items during a conversation with multiple participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J WILKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3890. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00-3:00 M-Th, 6:00-2:00 F.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571) 272-7799. 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.
/NATHANIEL JAMES WILKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights