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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 16, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues Priority, pg. 18 of Remarks:
Priority
In addition to the English translation of the application filed May 18, 2023, Applicant hereby submits a certificate of the English translation.
Respectfully, there is a document filed to the Office (9/16/2025), but it has nothing annexed to it and it is signed on the same date as the certified foreign document? It seems like a certified translation would be provided at a later date?
Anyway, to clarify matters, the Examiner can provide the submitted inputs to the Office so they can review what has been provided to determine if the inputs are adequate (if Applicant desires).
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 18 of Remarks:
Regarding rejection for Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 and respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, are in condition for allowance and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The amendments address the Examiner’s rejections by specifying a particular machine and a specific technical process of data transformation that cannot be performed by the human mind and amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections for the following reasons.
A. The Amended Claims Recite a Particular Machine, Not a Generic Computer Performing Mental Steps
The Examiner argues that a person can mentally perform the claimed steps and that adding a generic apparatus is insufficient to confer patentability. The claims have been substantially amended to refute this position by reciting a specific, non-generic technological implementation that is far beyond human capability.
Independent Claim 1 is now expressly limited to an electronic apparatus wherein the "process unit is configured to execute a crawler, a natural language model, and a neural network". Specific steps of the method are now explicitly tied to these particular, non-generic modules. For instance, the "recursive search" is performed "by the crawler", and the analysis of contents is performed "by the natural language model". The specification provides ample support for these modules, describing the crawler 122, natural language model 124, and neural network 126 as distinct components executed by the process unit 120.
These are not mental steps. A human cannot execute a crawler to automatically and recursively search and download a voluminous number of documents from various academic databases. A human cannot function as a natural language model to mathematically determine word vectors for thousands of documents and project them into a specific, non-conventional multi-dimensional map data structure. Critically, a human cannot act as a neural network to calculate a "simulation success rate" to programmatically filter potential development paths.
Applicant above is arguing features beyond the scope of the claim. There is no claimed “voluminous number of documents,” and “academic database,” and “mathematically determine word vectors for thousands of documents.” Further, mathematically determine word vectors would be a mathematical concept, which is itself abstract. Using a neural network to filter is recited at a high level of generality with no improvement to neural network technology itself.
By requiring the inventive method to these specific computer modules, the claims no longer recite a process that can be performed on any general-purpose computer. Instead, the claims define a particular machine specially configured to perform a specific, technical process that provides a meaningful improvement to computer functionality. It creates a new tool for intelligent medical literature analysis that did not previously exist.
With all due respect, most of the steps are using a generic computer (process unit). Even the neural network is likely using a computer to run software.
B. The Amended Claims Recite a Specific Technical Improvement Through Data Transformation
The amended claims define a concrete, multi-step process of data transformation that creates and utilizes specific data structures to solve a technical problem, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application with an inventive concept.
The process begins with unstructured data (first medical documents) and transforms it through a specific, ordered combination of steps:
Respectfully, “unstructured data” is not claimed.
1. Generating a First Data Structure: The claims now recite "generating a multi-dimensional map" by projecting documents based on word vectors determined by the natural language model. This is not merely "drawing a map,"; it is the algorithmic creation of a specific, complex data structure where spatial distances represent document correlations. This structure is essential for the next step.
2. Generating a Second Data Structure: From the multi-dimensional map, the claims recite "generating a label topology map by analyzing correlations". This step transforms the data from a correlational map into a hierarchical map representing potential development paths.
3. Applying Technical Rules to Filter the Data: Crucially, the claims now add a technical filtering step: "filtering the plurality of branch paths to identify a plurality of valid branch paths by programmatically determining a validity... based on at least one of a simulation success rate calculated by the neural network and an existence of a corresponding valid patent in a patent database". This step transforms the label topology map from a mere informational display into a refined, actionable decision-making tool.
4. Actionable Output: The final selection is made not from all paths, but specifically "from the identified valid branch paths". This highlights the functional necessity of the preceding technical filtering step.
Filtering data based on a neural network cannot be found in the specification.
This entire workflow—from unstructured text to a filtered set of validated development paths via the creation and manipulation of specific, unconventional data structures—is a practical application that improves the technical field of computer-aided medical research. It is not an abstract process but a tangible, technological method that achieves a result in a way that is impossible for a human to perform and is not routine or conventional for a computer. This provides the "significantly more" required for patent eligibility.
Broadly and generally, “computer-aided medical research” would likely be an abstract concept and not an improvement to technology. For example, there is no improvement to computer technology itself, and using a computer for research could be just automating a manual process.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully points out that the additional elements recited in Claim 1-20 require meaningful limits on medical document processing and feature extraction mechanism, making Claim 1-20 improves the efficiency of medical document processing and feature extraction to improve the performance, and thus integrates claimed features into a practical application, and includes an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (i.e., meets the requirement of Prong Two of STEP 2A), such that Claim 1-20 shall be patent eligible.
The rejection is respectfully modified for the claim amendments. The Examiner also could not find some of the amendments in the specification (35 USC 112(a) issue). If Applicant provides support, the Examiner will reconsider.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Also, see Petition Decision (dated May 23, 2025) regarding acceptance of late filing of certified copy.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A medical document analysis method, being adapted for use in an electronic apparatus, the electronic apparatus comprises a process unit, a communication transceiver unit, and a user interface, wherein the process unit is configured to execute a crawler, a natural language model, and a neural network, and the medical document analysis method comprises:
performing, by the crawler, a recursive search based on keywords of a plurality of first medical documents to obtain a plurality of second medical documents;
analyzing, by the natural language model, contents of the plurality of second medical documents, and marking each of the plurality of second medical documents with a plurality of feature labels;
generating a multi-dimensional map by projecting, by the process unit based on a plurality of determined word vectors determined by the natural language model, the plurality of second medical documents onto different coordinate positions in the multi-dimensional map respectively based on at least one of the plurality of feature labels of each of the plurality of second medical documents, wherein dimensions of the multi-dimensional map correspond to the plurality of feature labels, and distances between the coordinate positions correspond to a correlation between the plurality of second medical documents
in response to selecting a first symptom, estimating a plurality of second symptoms related to the first symptom;
selecting a plurality of third medical documents from the plurality of second medical documents by identifying a plurality of coordinates matching the first symptom and the plurality of second symptoms within the multi-dimensional map;
generating a label topology map by analyzing correlations between the plurality of third medical documents and their respective feature labels, wherein the label topology map comprises a plurality of branch paths, and each branch path represents a potential development path linking the first symptom to a drug formulation, a receptor name, and a drug dosage form;
filtering the plurality of branch paths to identify a plurality of valid branch paths by programmatically determining a validity of each branch path based on at least one of a simulation success rate calculated by a neural network and an existence of a corresponding valid patient in a patient database; and
selecting a target branch path from the identified valid branch paths, and displaying information related to the target branch path.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, covers performance of the limitation that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper. A person can with pen and paper perform a recursive (repeat) search by reviewing filed documents (filing cabinet) using a keyword, analyze contents of a second medical document and mark with labels, generate a multi-dimensional map by projecting word vectors, select a first symptom and estimate second symptoms related to the first symptom, select a third document (in their mind) based on identifying coordinates matching first and second symptoms, generate a label topology map by analyzing correlations between third documents and their feature labels, and select a target branch based on valid branch paths. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, where using a generic computer to perform a judicial exception has been shown to be abstract. Also, analyzing data and providing a result has been shown to be abstract (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
The claims also recite distances between the coordinate position correspond to a correlation between the plurality of second medical documents, and generating a topology map by analyzing correlations between the plurality of third medical documents and their respective feature label. The process of organizing information through mathematical correlations has been also shown to be abstract (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Therefore, the claims are also abstract under Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: Process unit, communication transceiver unit, user interface, neural network (Claim 1); communication transceiver unit, academic database, user interface, process unit, neural network (Claim 11). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The communication unit and user interface are in the preamble and not recited in the body of the claim, therefore, insignificant extra solution activity. The crawler and natural language model are software applied at a high level of generality. The filtering based on simulation success rate calculated by a neural network is recited and applied at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claim 2, 5, 12, and 15 recite natural language model at a high level of generality. Claims 7 and 17 recite database, which is recited at a high level of generality and is being applied to a judicial exception of searching (analyzing) a database (mental process). Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 recite correlation, therefore, are also abstract under Mathematical Concepts. Claims 9 and 19 are estimating a commercial value, which is a commercial interaction of determining a price for a user (inherent with determining a price is the price being determined for someone), therefore, abstract under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, the claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “selecting a plurality of third medical documents from the plurality of second medical documents by identifying a plurality of coordinates matching the first symptom and the plurality of second symptoms within the multi-dimensional map;” where identifying a plurality of coordinates could not be found in the written description.
From Applicant’s specification…
“As shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 5, the process unit 120 executes step S250 subsequently, selecting a plurality of coordinates matching the first symptom “cough” and the plurality of second symptoms “fever”, “headache”, and “runny nose” from the multi-dimensional map DRW1, and selecting a plurality of third medical documents from the plurality of second medical documents in the multi-dimensional map DRW1 based on a node adjacent to the plurality of coordinates.” [0051]
Therefore, third document is selected based on a node adjacent to coordinates, not on identifying a plurality of coordinates. Claim 11 has a similar problem.
Claim 1 recites “ filtering the plurality of branch paths to identify a plurality of valid branch paths by programmatically determining a validity of each branch path based on at least one of a simulation success rate calculated by a neural network and an existence of a corresponding valid patient in a patient database; and” where no teaching of filtering by determining validity and based on simulation success rate calculated by a neural network can be found in the written description.
From Applicant’s specification…
“For example, the third medical documents D3a and D3b correspond to the branch path BR1, accordingly, the process unit 120 estimates the simulation success rate of the branch path BR1 by using the neural network 126 based on an experimental result (i.e., a drug effect, a drug antagonism, or a drug side effect) mentioned in the third medical documents D3a and D3b. In this case, since the experimental result corresponding to the branch path BR1 mentioned in the third medical documents D3a and D3b is relatively negative (e.g., the side effect is relatively obvious), the simulation success rate estimated by using the neural network 126 may be 5%.” [0063]
Therefore, the neural network estimates a simulation success rate and is not about filtering branch paths to identify validity of each branch path.
From Applicant’s specification…
“The process unit 120 executes step S264, determining whether one of the simulation success rates estimated of the branch paths is lower than a threshold (in this embodiment, assume that the threshold is set as 10%). In response to the simulation success rate of any branch path in the label topology map DRW2 being lower than 10%, determining the corresponding branch path to be invalid.” [0066]
Therefore, the process unit determines a simulation success rate is lower than a threshold, and if less than a threshold, determines the path to be invalid. Claim 11 has a similar problem.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Search
A prior art search was updated but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. The closest prior art found is Patent No. US 11705226 to Colley et al. and WO 2022/216986 to Roberts et al. Colley et al. teaches analyzing documents, classification labels, maps, and nodes. However, Colley et al. fails to teach or render obvious the multi-dimensional map of documents and multi-dimensional map to form a topology map with branch that starts with first symptom and passes through drug formulation, receptor name, and drug dosage. WO 2022/216986 to Roberts also fails to teach map as claimed and topology map with branch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following art is cited as it is related to the instant application:
CN-118170861-A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684