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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement 3/29/2024.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 12-13
Considering at least these elements, the claim as a whole requiring "hardware processors ... training a model ... (to) generat(e) a machine-learning model (MLM) ... (and) further training the MLM on one or more updated mappings corresponding to the one or more modifications," cannot be performed inside the human mind as an organized "human activity11 or as a "mental process. 11 Nor do the elements recite a person physically acting1 (as an organized human activity) or a person thinking (as a mental process).
On the Prong One definition of mental processes, a mental process performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper, as set forth in the MPEP regarding subject-matter eligibility considerations, is NOT the same as and does not equate to a process performed in the mind with the aid of hardware microprocessors,
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner considers the elements of hardware processor and machine learning model as additional elements which are not part of step 2A prong 1 of identifying an abstract idea. The claims recite steps such as training a model which is just merely picking the best variable for a model. The claims also recite generating a model which can be done without the use of a computer. These are mere data manipulation steps.
Applicant argues on page 13-14
Further, on the Prong One definition of certain methods of organizing human activity, claim 1 does NOT recite "a human" or even suggest organizing the activity of a human. Instead, the claim recites electronic microprocessors controlling devices. Further, the claim does NOT recite "people." Further, claim 1 does NOT recite: "managing personal behavior" since no human is recited and no human behavior is recited, does
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The independent claims also recite workflows and making a determination on which workflows performs better. Figure 1 also recites interactions between multiple user computers. The specification in para 0002 also teaches (Managing content for a provider of health care information technology services is an extremely difficult and time consuming task.) Managing consumer/patient data is a business practice. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people).
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, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary --independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15 recite the limitations of
training a model…wherein training the model is based…generating a…model based on terminologically confirming the candidate mappings; providing…candidate workflow comprising a plurality of charting elements for charting patient data; responsive to a request received… identifying a requesting tenant… among a plurality of… the tenant…identifying a first ontology among a plurality of ontologies; and mapping (a) a model code associated with the particular charting element in the plurality of charting elements to (b) a standard-based concept code corresponding to a tenant-specific customized concept for and the first ontology, using the…model… populating at least part of the candidate workflow with charting data (a) retrieved, via the mapping…presenting the candidate workflow, comprising the charting data, …recording usage of the candidate workflow at least by recording one or more interactions with the candidate workflow…responsive to a modification request, received…instructing modification of the candidate workflow: generating, a modified workflow at least by modifying a subset of the plurality of charting elements, and recording usage of the modified workflow across…generating, key performance indicator (KPI) data based at least on a comparison of the recorded usage of the candidate workflow with recorded usage of the modified workflow… determining…based at least on the KPI data, that the…modified workflow performs better with respect…and responsive to determining that the modified workflow performs better than the candidate workflow for the at least one charting element: (i) updating the model… (ii) further training the model… on one or more updated mappings corresponding to the one or more modifications, the one or more updated mappings being terminologically confirmed, and (iii) prompting…to adopt the one or more modifications for future workflows provided to the at least…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of training, identifying, mapping, updating, recording, presenting, populating, providing, generating, and determining data. The claims also recite prompting which is merely asking a question to a user to adopt one or modifications for future workflows. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable media, the claim language encompasses simply providing a candidate workflow, generating a modified workflow based on a request, generating KPI for the workflows, determining that the modified workflow performs better, and providing actions based on this analysis such as updating data, further training, or prompting. Training is merely selecting the best variable for a model and this can be done by a guess and check method by a user without the use of a computer. The claims also include mapping codes with respect to a workflow, populating a workflow, presenting a workflow, and recording usage of the workflow. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user can provide and modify workflows. A user can determine KPI data for workflows and determine which is better for future workflow recommendations. A user is also able to map data and populate/present/record a workflow. Given a real-world example, this is done by a manager or business owner. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
The independent claims also recite workflows and workflow KPI data. Figure 1 also recites interactions between multiple user computers. The specification in para 0002 also teaches (Managing content for a provider of health care information technology services is an extremely difficult and time consuming task.) Managing consumer/patient data is a business practice. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people).
It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of non-transitory computer readable media, processors, a machine-learning model (MLM), network electronic charting system, neural network, tenant computing system, applications, model database, remote computing devices, machine learning model, and system.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe a terminologist to confirm suggestions. In addition, the dependent claims further describe details about the usage data of the workflow such as the usage being across a plurality of applications.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, electronic charting system, machine-learning model (MLM), network, model database, remote computing device, tenant computing system, applications
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 state neural network.
Claim 8 recites system, processor, non-transitory computer readable media, and electronic charting system, machine-learning model (MLM), network, model database, remote computing device, tenant computing system, applications
Claim 15 recites method, however a method is not considered an abstract idea.
Claim 15 further recites, hardware processor, machine-learning model (MLM), network, model database, remote computing device, tenant computing system, applications
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the Applicant’s specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0033.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0033. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Chodavarapu (US20130304530A1) Discloses monitoring a process with respect to a plurality of applications.
Hudgins (US20110066425A1) Discloses providing medical terminology services.
Hu (20180107798) discloses patient data with respect to neural networks.
Velez (US20190057774A1) Discloses mapping ontologies.
Crockett (20230281327) Discloses systems, non-transitory computer-readable media, and methods that utilize a switchboard management system as an integration framework for efficiently communicating and accurately populating digital fields between multiple applications while preserving the security and accuracy of sensitive information corresponding to various applications and data sources.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights