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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 21 October 2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 have been rejected.
Priority
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. CN202110054078.1, filed on 15 January 2021.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 15 January 2021 claiming benefit to CN202110054078.1.
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 1-9, 11, and 13-20 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.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 are drawn to a method or apparatus, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method for determining a drug’s anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC) system code in part performing the steps of acquiring a digital description text of a drug; processing the digital description text to extract key information of the drug from the digital description text by using a trained named entity recognition (NER) model configured to identify and extract the key information, wherein the key information comprises a drug ingredient; obtaining at least one code related to the key information of the drug and an ingredient corresponding to each code based on a pre-created code inverted index, comprising using the extracted drug ingredient as a search term for the pre-created code inverted to thereby obtain, as an output from the pre-created code inverted index, at least one code related to the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code; and screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain an anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug.
Independent claim 7 recites an apparatus for determining a drug’s anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC) system code in part performing the steps of acquiring, from a pharmacist, a digital description text of a drug corresponding to a prescription; processing the digital description text to extract key information of the drug from the digital description text by using a trained named entity recognition (NER) model configured to identify and extract the key information, wherein the key information comprises a drug ingredient; obtaining at least one code related to the key information of the drug and an ingredient corresponding to each code based on a pre-created code inverted index, comprising using the extracted drug ingredient as a search term for the pre-created code inverted to thereby obtain, as an output from the pre-created code inverted index, at least one code related to the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code, wherein the pre-created code inverted index maps Chinese and/or English names of chemical substances to ATC codes; and screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain an anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug; the screening comprising applying a predetermined plurality of hierarchical rules to screen the at least one code based on a comparison between the extracted drug ingredient and the ingredient corresponding to each code to thereby identify an anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug; and performing medical information management based on the obtained anatomical therapeutic chemical classification code of the drug and the prescription.
Independent claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium for determining a drug’s anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC) system code in part performing the steps of acquiring a digital description text of a drug; processing the digital description text to extract key information of the drug from the digital description text by using a trained named entity recognition (NER) model configured to identify and extract the key information, wherein the key information comprises a drug ingredient; obtaining at least one code related to the key information of the drug and an ingredient corresponding to each code based on a pre-created code inverted index, comprising using the extracted drug ingredient as a search term for the pre-created code inverted to thereby obtain, as an output from the pre-created code inverted index, at least one code related to the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code; and screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain an anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug.
Dependent claims 2, 8, & 13 recite, in part, wherein the screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug comprises: detecting, for each code in the at least one code, whether an ingredient corresponding to the code satisfies one of a plurality of rules having a priority order, the plurality of rules being determined based on the drug ingredient; determining a preliminarily screened candidate code comprising the code, in response to determining that the ingredient corresponding to the code satisfies one of the plurality of rules and detections for all codes are completed; and determining that the preliminarily screened candidate code is the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug, in response to detecting that the preliminarily screened candidate code refers to only one code.
Dependent claims 3, 18, & 14 recite, in part, wherein the plurality of rules are arranged in a descending order of priorities as follows: (1) the ingredient corresponding to the code comprises all drug ingredients of the drug when there are two or more kinds of drug ingredients; (2) the ingredient corresponding to the code comprises at least one drug ingredient of the drug and contains a word "compound" when there are two or more kinds of drug ingredients; (3) the ingredient corresponding to the code comprises at least one drug ingredient of the drug and does not contain the word "compound" when there are two or more kinds of drug ingredients; and (4) the ingredient corresponding to the code comprises the drug ingredient when there is one kind of drug ingredient.
Dependent claims 4, 19, & 15 recite, in part, the screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug comprises: detecting, for each code in the at least one code, whether an ingredient corresponding to the code matches the drug ingredient; obtaining a preliminarily screened candidate code comprising the code, in response to determining that the ingredient corresponding to the code matches the drug ingredient and detections for all codes are completed; and determining that the preliminarily screened candidate code is the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug, in response to detecting that the preliminarily screened candidate code refers to only one code.
Dependent claims 5, 9, & 16 recite, in part, wherein the key information of the drug further comprises a drug indication, and screening the at least one code based on the key information of the drug and the ingredient corresponding to each code to obtain the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug further comprises: determining a disease type corresponding to the drug based on the drug indication, in response to detecting that the preliminarily screened candidate code refers to a plurality of codes; and screening a code corresponding to the disease type from the preliminarily screened candidate code as the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system code of the drug.
Dependent claims 6, 20, & 17 recite, in part, wherein determining the disease type corresponding to the drug based on the drug indication comprises: performing a disease classification on the indication using a pre-trained classification model to obtain the disease type outputted by the classification model.
These steps of analyzing pharmaceutical ingredients to determine a drug code amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 recites a server in a medical information system. Claim 7 recites a server in a medical information system comprising: a one or more processors, a memory storing one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, and a pharmacist terminal. Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing a computer program and a server in a medical information system. The specification does not provide any specific hardware requirements for the computer and corresponding hardware (see the instant specification in ¶ 0106-109). The use of a one or more processors, a memory storing one or more programs, and a non-transitory computer readable medium are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Claims 1, 7, and 11 recite a pre-created code inverted index stored in a memory of the server. Saving data on a memory is recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
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 instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites a server in a medical information system. Claim 7 recites a server in a medical information system comprising: a one or more processors, a memory storing one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, and a pharmacist terminal. Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing a computer program and a server in a medical information system.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1, 7, and 11 recite a pre-created code inverted index stored in a memory of the server. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 October 2025 with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11:
First, Applicant asserts that by performing the steps of a method via a computer/server, the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1. The use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1).
Applicant next asserts that a human mind is not reasonable able to convert unstructured text into a structured, standardized code by “electronically scanning” or implementing a “NER model” under Step 2A Prong 1. Examiner disagrees. A human mind is perfectly able to scan a document, make determinations following a list of rules, i.e. a model, and determine a preset list of “structured” data codes accordingly. While certain embodiments of the claim language may be too complex to be performed mentally as indicated by Applicant, there is no evidence of such complexity in the particular claim language that would indicate that the tasks performed within the abstract idea could not practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Next, Applicant asserts that under Step 2A Prong 2 that the instant claims amount to a practical application via an improvement to medical information management. An improvement to the abstract idea of identifying and coding pharmaceutical drug labels does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Regarding independent claim 7:
Applicant first restates the asserts made regarding the judicial exception outlined under independent claims 1 and 11. Examiner notes that the analysis does not change regarding the additional claim limitations of independent claim 7.
Next, Applicant asserts that independent claim 7 recites a practical application via a particular machine under Step 2A Prong 2. Examiner disagrees. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) stating if applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-5389 and fax number is (571) 273-1626. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday, 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682