DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 1/21/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 16 – 20), machine (claims 1 – 15) which recite abstract idea steps of
analyze data records using word embeddings to produce vectors indicative of similarity scores for words or phrases in the data records relative to electronically stored reference data;
compute shapeley additive explanation (SHAP) values, the features scores
providing a measure used to rank contributions of the words or phrases to the similarity scores;
iteratively and adjust or update a model using human-in-the-loop based reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) by:
receiving from a human an input representative of a modification to at least one of the contributions determined by the feature score computation; and
responsive to receiving the input, adjusting at least one of the ranks of the word embeddings in the model
Understanding the claimed invention in light of the specification.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes mathematical concepts. Paragraph 3 includes, “The present disclosure provides systems and methods for building healthcare systems that are compatible with regulatory frameworks while leveraging machine learning techniques and algorithms in a manner that allows a level of probity and explainability of results obtained by the algorithms.” Besides the extra-solution activity, the steps of the invention are directed towards calculations.
From MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)C
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The use of the invention is described in paragraph 12 as, “For example, knowing that the machine learning algorithm considers the most salient symptoms when performing a medical diagnosis can better inform individuals of drawbacks associated with the algorithm and possible ways of improving the algorithm. Explainability in machine learning systems is crucial especially when these systems are used in a heavily regulated space like healthcare industry. Paragraph 63 further explains the invention
[0063] By using SHAP values to explain the output of the machine learning model, healthcare providers better understand the factors that contribute to a patient's diagnosis and treatment plan. This helps improve the accuracy of diagnoses and provide more personalized care to patients.
From MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)C
The sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The invention applies technology to the abstract idea. The invention obtains all the benefits of applying technology to the abstract idea. It should be emphasized that the result of the invention is data that has a potential usage. The Examiner does not see a disclosed or claimed practical application. The disclosure does not show a technological improvement to overcome a technical problem.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 20, reciting particular aspects of how importance analysis may be performed but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of instructions executed by a processor amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 20, additional limitations which amount 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. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 20; analyze, compute, adjust, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Additional elements:
Computer – paragraph 15
Network – paragraph 74
Deep learning model/ language model – paragraphs 30, 35 i.e. GPT-4
Language data – paragraph 35 ICD/ CPT 66 research papers
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 20, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, machine learning, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
Step 2A - Prong One
The Applicant states, “The independent claims do not recite mathematical concept, for at least the same reasons as argued in the Response to Office Action mailed July 2, 2025.” The inventions steps are mathematical. The invention is directed to a mathematical application.
The Applicant states, “It is respectfully submitted that later guidance has not made Example 39 less relevant. Specifically, the August 4, 2025 Memo, following the Ex Parte Desjardins et al. decision, addresses this specific example. The August 4, 2025 Memo on p. 3 states:” The later guidance shows that the invention must be directed towards a technological improvement. The instant invention is not disclosed as a technological improvement. The specification describes the invention is using machine learning techniques.
The Applicant states, “Training or updating a model can, in appropriate circumstances, be treated as not reciting a judicial exception where no formula/relationship is set forth and the claim focuses on a particular training scheme.” This is true when the invention is directed to technical or technological improvement that solves a problem of technology.
The Applicant states, “The claim merely indicates that the language model is improved for a particular purpose based on changes to rank contributions.” The claim does not show this. The claim ends with, “present, via the electronic HMI, content or subject matter pertaining to the at least one section.”
The Applicant states, “Thus, the claims require fine-tuning a language model as well as using the fine-tuned model to obtain content or subject matter from the reference data.” However, the Applicant does not show that this is a technological improvement. The invention is an application of technology. Those machine learning models are math.
Step 2A - Prong Two
The Applicant states, “This is a particular way of improving model operation-not merely invoking a model as a tool.” The Applicant does not disclose that they invented this technique. The use of an existing technique in a new area is an application of technology.
The Applicant states, “The improvement provided by the claims is technological. The claims change how the language model is tuned and used so that it more accurately identifies relevant sections via embedding-weight updates constrained by explained contributions.” The Examiner notes that the Applicant never quotes the Specification to show the invention is a technological improvement. The Applicant merely provides his opinion.
The Applicant states, “The Specification consistently describes technical benefits (improved accuracy, reliable section identification, transparency into which features drive outputs, iterative improvement via reinforcement learning) that are realized by the claimed steps.” The Examiner does not disagree that the application of technology provides benefits. However, the Examiner again notes that the Specification never states that the invention is a technological improvement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
St. Clair et al Pub. No.: US 2007 /0055552 creates an electronic health record (EHR), and analyzes that record to present treatment opportunities, strategies, and plans for the physician and patient in a Patient Clinical Summary report also referred to as a PCS report
Rajput et al Pub. No.: US 2023/0395235 system includes a patient clinical database, a data aggregation layer and data pre-processor module, a digital cognitive therapy delivery module, a cognitive analytics engine, and a personalised cognitive platform configured to personalize a personalised cognitive digital therapy model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights