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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 8-10 that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement. Applicant states
The Office Action oversimplifies the claim limitations and misrepresents the claimed invention. Applicant has not characterized the technical problem being solved as merely "distributing and modifying workflows" or "managing content." In Applicant's prior response, Applicant noted that the technical field of electronic charting systems faces the technical problem of different clients using different data formats and naming conventions, impeding the ability to share content (e.g., charting workflows) among multiple clients. In addition, the amended claims recite that "among a plurality of clients serviced by the electronic charting system, at least two clients use different concept codes for a particular charting element in the plurality of charting elements." The claims recite technical operations that overcomes this technical problem.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Distributing and modifying workflows is not a technical problem but a business problem. Applicant’s specification also states the problem of managing information for a healthcare provider in para 0002. Managing content is also a business problem. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. This automation was accomplished through rules that were applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs. The claimed invention is merely automating the manual process of managing content for a provider. Examples the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
In addition, the Applicant argues the business problem of sharing content. Sharing content is merely a data manipulation step and is not a technical problem. A user would be able to share content without the use of a computer. For example, Applicant’s amendment recite two clients use different concept codes. The concept codes can be merely just a number as seen in para 0025 of Applicant’s specification. Clients having two numbers does not add any technical limitations to the claimed invention.
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
Providing…a recommended workflow comprising a plurality of charting elements for charting patient data; responsive to user input that requests modification of the recommended workflow: generating… a user-modified workflow at least by modifying a subset of the plurality of charting elements; generating…key performance indicator (KPI) data based at least on a comparison of recorded usage of the recommended workflow with recorded usage of the user-modified workflow; determining…that the user-modified workflow performs better with respect to one or more of clinical outcomes, client outcomes, or distributed value than the recommended workflow for at least one charting element in the plurality of charting elements; responsive to determining that the user-modified workflow performs better than the recommended workflow for the at least one charting element: generating…one or more modifications to one or more charting elements included the recommended workflow for future workflow recommendations.
With respect to Applicant’s amendments on 10/2/2025 the claims further recite
mapping (a) a model code associated with the particular charting element in the plurality of charting elements to (b) standard based concept code corresponding to a client domain- specific customized concept for an ontology, using a…model trained to map a plurality of model codes to a plurality of standard based concept codes corresponding to client domain-specific customized concepts for the ontology; populating at least part of the recommended workflow with charting data associated with the client domain-specific customized concept ; presenting the recommended workflow, comprising the charting data…recording usage of the recommended workflow at least by recording one or more user interactions with the recommended workflow…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of providing, generating, and determining data. The claims also include mapping, populating, presenting, and recording data. 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 recommended workflow, generating a modified workflow based on user input, generating KPI for the workflows, determining that the modified workflow performs better, and generating that workflow for future use. 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 independent claims also recite workflows and workflow KPI data. Figure 1 also recites interactions between multiple user computers. 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, electronic charting system, neural network, applications, user devices, machine learning model, and system.
Applicant amendments from 2/17/2026 wherein among a plurality of clients serviced by the electronic charting system, at least two clients use different concept codes for a particular charting element in the plurality of charting elements, is merely further describing the additional element of electronic charting 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,
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.
Claim 15 recites method, however a method is not considered an abstract idea.
Claim 15 further recites electronic charting system.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 further recite machine learning model, applications and user devices.
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.
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