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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 01/27/26.
Claims 1, 10, 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8, 17 have been canceled.
Claims 9, 18 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Foreign Priority/Continuity
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN-2021101058809, filed on 01/26/21. Status of this application as a CON of PCT/CN2021/103667, filed 06/30/21, is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 01/26/2021 has been given to this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has been amended to recite:
acquiring question entities from a knowledge graph according to the disease feature entities corresponding to the candidate diseases, further comprising: receiving a user selection of answer options corresponding to the disease feature entities of the candidate diseases are selected (Emphasis Examiner). As presented, the claim is grammatically incorrect as “are” is an additional verb after “receiving”; use of “are” does not make sense in the overall context of the limitation “receiving a user selection…”. Examiner is interpreting the bolded instance of “are” to be included in error. For purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “acquiring question entities from a knowledge graph according to the disease feature entities corresponding to the candidate diseases, further comprising: receiving a user selection of answer options corresponding to the disease feature entities of the candidate diseases selected. Please correct or explain on the record.
Claims 10 and 19 contain similar language and are objected to for the same reason as Claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 11-16, 20 are objected to as they inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
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 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method, Claims 10-16 are drawn to a computing device, and Claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, each of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
determining user disease features according to at least one user input in a current inquiry round;
performing disease prediction on the user disease features to obtain corresponding candidate diseases, each candidate disease having a corresponding disease feature entity;
acquiring question entities from a knowledge graph according to the disease feature entities corresponding to the candidate diseases, further comprising:
receiving a user selection of answer options corresponding to the disease feature entities of the candidate diseases selected;
in response to the user selection, acquiring the question entities from the knowledge graph according to hit action attributes in the disease feature entities corresponding to the disease feature entities of the candidate diseases, wherein the knowledge graph is pre-established based on an association between the disease feature entities and the question entities;
calculating importance scores of the user disease features associated with the current user according to conditional probabilities of the disease feature entities corresponding to the user disease features contained in the candidate diseases for the current user and prior probabilities of the candidate diseases for a generic user;
ranking the user disease features contained in the candidate diseases according to their importance scores associated with the current user
dynamically determining target disease features associated with the current user from the disease feature entities corresponding to the candidate diseases according to the rankings of the importance scores corresponding to the disease features, the target disease features being used for representing user disease features inquired in the current inquiry round; and
acquiring, according to types corresponding to the target disease features, the question entities of the corresponding types from the knowledge graph, the question entities being used for representing questions related to the disease feature entities and the types corresponding to the target disease features include symptoms, triggering factors, high incidence seasons, contact history, and family history; and
dynamically generating target questions for the current user according to the question entities and the target disease features corresponding to the types, the target questions being used for performing an inquiry on the current user that submits the at least one user input.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Determining user disease features, performing disease prediction based on user disease features in a current inquiry round to obtain candidate diseases, acquiring questions related to the disease features by receiving a user’s answer selections and acquiring question entities from the knowledge graph according to disease feature entities of the candidate disease, calculating importance scores of the user disease features and ranking the user disease features to determine target disease features according to the rankings, and subsequently generating target questions for the user, are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations and also recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a computing device as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 1)
a computing device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to be executed by a processor to cause the computing device to implement the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 10)
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions executed by a processor of a computing device as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 19)
The broad recitation of the aforementioned general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. Per specification paras. [0042], [0378], [0379], [0380], these are all understood to be general purpose computing elements/devices functioning in their ordinary capacities.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 10 and 19 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claims 3, 5, 12, 14, 20 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims. Claim 2-7, 11-16, 20 further recite limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity, as the limitations amount to personal behaviors that may be performed by healthcare personnel.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Limitations containing recitation of “field filling” (or similar) are given their broadest reasonable interpretation of entering information into a form field, which is a task that could be performed by a healthcare provider.
Dependent claims 11-16, 20 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of the independent claims above. As discussed above with respect to independent claims and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform 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. Limitations containing recitation of “field filling” (or similar) are given their broadest reasonable interpretation of entering information into a form field. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1, 10, or 19 respectively. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - 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.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-16, 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
35 USC 101 Rejections
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-20, Applicant has canceled claims 8 and 17, rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims, as amended, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding (A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding various cited case law at page 9:
Examiner submits that with respect to Applicant’s reference to Diehr, the claims in Diehr were directed to a novel method of curing rubber by using an equation to constantly monitor the temperature of the rubber mold to determine when to open the mold, to solve problems of the prior art systems with under/over-curing rubber. The instant claims do not recite using the judicial exception to control an external device in a particular way, and Examiner is not convinced the instant claims are analogous to Diehr. This argument is not persuasive.
Examiner submits that with respect to Applicant’s reference to Gottschalk, the claims were directed to a method of programming a general purpose digital computer to convert signals from binary-coded decimal form into pure binary form. Applicant has not provided further remarks, and as such, Examiner is unable to see any parallels between Gottschalk and the instant claims as the instant claims do not pertain to conversion of signals from binary-coded decimal form into pure binary form. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding remarks directed to MPEP 2106.06(b) summarizing Enfish and McRO: Regarding Enfish, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are analogous. In Enfish, the court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility (MPEP 2106.05(a)); the claimed invention improved the functioning of the computer itself. Regarding McRO, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are analogous. In McRO, the court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality as the claims allowed a computer to perform 3-D lip-syncing animation using a new morph weight algorithm that allowed the computer to perform animation tasks that only a human could previously perform. The instant claims do not recite any analogous limitations to Enfish or McRO. These remarks are not persuasive.
Regarding remark in which Applicant asserts that “the claims recite a specific technical implementation that improves the functioning of automated medical inquiry technology” at page 10, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Para. [0042], [0378], [0379], [0380] as cited above in main 101 analysis section) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine). Furthermore, while Applicant’s claimed invention recites the additional elements of a computing device, a computing device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions to be executed by a processor to cause the computing device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions executed by a processor of a computing device, these additional elements merely implement the steps of the abstract idea, e.g., there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. Operating a computing device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that other technology. As such, these additional elements are not improved through implementation of the abstract idea and a practical application is not present. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims as amended now recite a specific process of dynamically generating target questions for a patient.
Regarding (B), Examiner respectfully submits that all of the features cited by Applicant fall within the scope of the abstract idea, e.g., generating target questions for a patient based on initial input from the patient, is a personal behavior that may be performed by a healthcare provider. Further, Examiner respectfully submits that these features may provide an improvement to the abstract idea itself, but as the improvements are not provided by one or more additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), this is not sufficient to constitute a practical application by providing an improvement to functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field. This argument is not persuasive.
This dynamic updating process requires acquiring the question entities from the knowledge graph according to hit action attributes… which allows the system to generate more accurate questions by taking into account the conditional probabilities of the disease feature entities…
Regarding (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding remarks to “dynamic updating process” , Examiner respectfully submits that the features of this paragraph (e.g., generation of more accurate questions by taking into account conditional probabilities of disease features) may provide an improvement to the abstract idea itself (as generating questions falls within the scope of the abstract idea; it is a personal behavior that could be performed by a healthcare provider). However, as the improvements are not provided by one or more additional elements (as discussed above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(a)), this is not sufficient to constitute a practical application by providing an improvement to functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field. As stated by Applicant here, the dynamic updating process… “allows the system to generate more accurate questions by taking into account the conditional probabilities”; Examiner submits that “the system’, e.g., the computing device/components, is/are merely being used as a tool to implement the step of generating more accurate questions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). This argument is not persuasive.
“The amended claims a specific technical implementation for calculating the importance scores, ranking the disease feature entities…” (Examiner interprets this to be intended to say “The amended claims provide a specific technical implementation”).
Regarding (D), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding “specific technical implementation”, Examiner submits that as discussed in the main 101 analysis section above and in previous response paragraphs, the technical implementation is via a general purpose computing device/with general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea. Calculating importance scores, ranking disease feature entities based on their corresponding scores, and dynamically determining target disease features associated with the current user, are all limitations that fall within the scope of the abstract idea, as previously stated. Any purported improvements may be improvements to the abstract idea itself, but this is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” These remarks are not persuasive.
For all of the above reasons, the rejections of Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20080183500 A1, teaching on a health management system/process using a question/answer format to obtain information from a patient
US Publication 20170103168 A1, teaching on a knowledge-based personal intelligent health consulting system
US Publication 20130310653 A1, teaching on an automated method of supporting clinical diagnosis using weighted relationships between symptoms and diseases
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682