DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to arguments/amendments filed for U.S. Application No. 18/500664 on August 20, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figure 3 has a box that does not spell “Frequency” it instead spells “Fre uency”. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 18, 2026 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Applicant
5. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner in hopes of reaching a resolution in light of compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
6. Claim 19 is cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are fully persuasive. However the claims contain an abstract idea. A new non-final office is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites
“extracting, ‘…’ (i) a primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring assessment alpha- numerical code of the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes, and (ii) a primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring intervention alpha-numerical code of the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally using looking at codes and identifying the one type as primary assessment and a second type as primary intervention,
“generating, ‘…’ a frequency distribution comprising a plurality of code pairs based on a plurality of cooccurrences of the plurality of assessment alpha- numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes within the plurality of interaction data objects, wherein a code pair of the plurality of code pairs comprises the primary assessment alpha-numerical code and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a frequency distribution based upon pairs of the two types of codes,
“generating, ‘…’ and using the frequency distribution, a cross- code dataset comprising one or more mapped code pairs from the plurality of code pairs based on a threshold cooccurrence value, wherein one of the one or more mapped code pairs comprises one of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database mapped with one of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within the ICD database, and the threshold cooccurrence value comprises a relative frequency percentage that is specific to the assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and is applied to a subset of the plurality of code pairs that comprise the assessment alpha- numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a dataset based upon pairs of the two types of codes, achieving a certain threshold cooccurrence,
and performing, ‘…’ based on the cross-code dataset, a query resolution operation for the electronic search query, the query resolution operation comprising in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to perform a query resolution to perform a search;
“identifying an intermediate search resolution for the ‘…’ search query based on a comparison between the one or more query terms of the ‘…’ search query and the cross-code dataset, wherein the intermediate search resolution comprise particular intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database that corresponds to the particular assessment alpha-numerical code and providing, to the electronic search engine, data indicative of the intermediate search resolution” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the query resolution based upon the query terms matching a particular intervention to a particular assessment. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can pairs of codes and based upon a cooccurrence frequency threshold performing a search based upon codes that meet that threshold in order to retrieve relevant results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “by the one or more processors and from the interaction data object” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “by the one or more processors and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, "receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example “electronic” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code”.
For example, “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites "identifying a set of intervention alpha-numerical codes of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes that correspond to each of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes based on the frequency distribution, wherein a number of the set of intervention alpha- numerical codes is based on the threshold cooccurrence value” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the query resolution based upon the query terms matching a particular intervention to a particular assessment. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can pairs of codes and based upon a cooccurrence frequency threshold performing a search based upon codes that meet that threshold in order to retrieve relevant results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval”.
For example, “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects”.
For example, “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary assessment alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary intervention alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary assessment alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary intervention alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object”.
For example, “wherein the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary assessment alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes of the interaction data object comprises a primary intervention alpha-numerical code within a subset of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites
“extracting, ‘…’ (i) a primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring assessment alpha- numerical code of the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes, and (ii) a primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring intervention alpha-numerical code of the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally using looking at codes and identifying the one type as primary assessment and a second type as primary intervention,
“generating, ‘…’ a frequency distribution comprising a plurality of code pairs based on a plurality of cooccurrences of the plurality of assessment alpha- numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes within the plurality of interaction data objects, wherein a code pair of the plurality of code pairs comprises the primary assessment alpha-numerical code and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a frequency distribution based upon pairs of the two types of codes,
“generating, ‘…’ and using the frequency distribution, a cross- code dataset comprising one or more mapped code pairs from the plurality of code pairs based on a threshold cooccurrence value, wherein one of the one or more mapped code pairs comprises one of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database mapped with one of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within the ICD database, and the threshold cooccurrence value comprises a relative frequency percentage that is specific to the assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and is applied to a subset of the plurality of code pairs that comprise the assessment alpha- numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a dataset based upon pairs of the two types of codes, achieving a certain threshold cooccurrence,
and performing, ‘…’ based on the cross-code dataset, a query resolution operation for the electronic search query, the query resolution operation comprising in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to perform a query resolution to perform a search;
“identifying an intermediate search resolution for the ‘…’ search query based on a comparison between the one or more query terms of the ‘…’ search query and the cross-code dataset, wherein the intermediate search resolution comprise particular intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database that corresponds to the particular assessment alpha-numerical code and providing, to the electronic search engine, data indicative of the intermediate search resolution” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the query resolution based upon the query terms matching a particular intervention to a particular assessment. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can pairs of codes and based upon a cooccurrence frequency threshold performing a search based upon codes that meet that threshold in order to retrieve relevant results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “by the one or more processors and from the interaction data object” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “by the one or more processors and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, "receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example “electronic” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “wherein the cross- code dataset comprises a plurality of mapped code pairs and each of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a respective assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and a respective intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code”.
For example, “wherein a mapped code pair of the plurality of mapped code pairs comprises a first textual description of the respective assessment alpha-numerical code mapped to a second textual description of the respective intervention alpha-numerical code”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites "identifying a set of intervention alpha-numerical codes of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes that correspond to each of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes based on the frequency distribution, wherein a number of the set of intervention alpha- numerical codes is based on the threshold cooccurrence value” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the query resolution based upon the query terms matching a particular intervention to a particular assessment. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can pairs of codes and based upon a cooccurrence frequency threshold performing a search based upon codes that meet that threshold in order to retrieve relevant results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “wherein the one or more mapped code pairs comprise a respective mapped code pair for each assessment alpha- numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval”.
For example, “wherein the plurality of interaction data objects is associated with a time interval”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects”.
For example, “wherein the time interval is based on a refresh rate that defines one or more of one or more historical refresh times or one or more future refresh times for the plurality of interaction data objects”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes are based on one or more primary assessment alpha-numerical codes and one or more primary intervention alpha- numerical codes identified within each of the plurality of interaction data objects” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes are based on one or more primary assessment alpha-numerical codes and one or more primary intervention alpha- numerical codes identified within each of the plurality of interaction data objects”.
For example, “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes are based on one or more primary assessment alpha-numerical codes and one or more primary intervention alpha- numerical codes identified within each of the plurality of interaction data objects”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites
“extracting, ‘…’ (i) a primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring assessment alpha- numerical code of the one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes, and (ii) a primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprising a first occurring intervention alpha-numerical code of the one or more intervention alpha-numerical codes” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally using looking at codes and identifying the one type as primary assessment and a second type as primary intervention,
“generating, ‘…’ a frequency distribution comprising a plurality of code pairs based on a plurality of cooccurrences of the plurality of assessment alpha- numerical codes and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes within the plurality of interaction data objects, wherein a code pair of the plurality of code pairs comprises the primary assessment alpha-numerical code and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a frequency distribution based upon pairs of the two types of codes,
“generating, ‘…’ and using the frequency distribution, a cross- code dataset comprising one or more mapped code pairs from the plurality of code pairs based on a threshold cooccurrence value, wherein one of the one or more mapped code pairs comprises one of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database mapped with one of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within the ICD database, and the threshold cooccurrence value comprises a relative frequency percentage that is specific to the assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes and is applied to a subset of the plurality of code pairs that comprise the assessment alpha- numerical code in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to create a dataset based upon pairs of the two types of codes, achieving a certain threshold cooccurrence,
and performing, ‘…’ based on the cross-code dataset, a query resolution operation for the electronic search query, the query resolution operation comprising in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to perform a query resolution to perform a search;
“identifying an intermediate search resolution for the ‘…’ search query based on a comparison between the one or more query terms of the ‘…’ search query and the cross-code dataset, wherein the intermediate search resolution comprise particular intervention alpha-numerical code of the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within the CPT database that corresponds to the particular assessment alpha-numerical code and providing, to the electronic search engine, data indicative of the intermediate search resolution” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the query resolution based upon the query terms matching a particular intervention to a particular assessment. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can pairs of codes and based upon a cooccurrence frequency threshold performing a search based upon codes that meet that threshold in order to retrieve relevant results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “by the one or more processors and from the interaction data object” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “by the one or more processors and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, "receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example “electronic” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes”.
For example, “receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of interaction data objects, wherein an interaction data object of the plurality of interaction data objects comprises a medical claim accessed from one of a plurality of electronic health records for a population of individuals over a time interval, the medical claim comprising a historical record of one or more assessment alpha-numerical codes of a plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes defined within an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) database and one or more intervention alpha- numerical codes of a plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes defined within a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) database that are billed together in the medical claim”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, data indicative of an electronic search query provided by a user device to an electronic search engine, wherein the electronic search query comprises one or more query terms associated with a particular assessment alpha-numerical code of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 21, specifically claim 21 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 21 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed assessment alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed intervention alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of intervention alpha- numerical codes listed in the interaction data object” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed assessment alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed intervention alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of intervention alpha- numerical codes listed in the interaction data object”.
For example, “wherein the primary assessment alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed assessment alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes listed in the interaction data object and the primary intervention alpha-numerical code comprises a first listed intervention alpha-numerical code within the subset of the plurality of intervention alpha- numerical codes listed in the interaction data object”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 22, specifically claim 22 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 22 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the query resolution operation further comprises: identifying a search resolution for the electronic search query based on a comparison between the intermediate search resolution and the plurality of interaction data objects; and the data indicative of the intermediate search resolution comprises data indicative of the search resolution” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the query resolution operation further comprises: identifying a search resolution for the electronic search query based on a comparison between the intermediate search resolution and the plurality of interaction data objects; and the data indicative of the intermediate search resolution comprises data indicative of the search resolution”.
For example, “wherein the query resolution operation further comprises: identifying a search resolution for the electronic search query based on a comparison between the intermediate search resolution and the plurality of interaction data objects; and the data indicative of the intermediate search resolution comprises data indicative of the search resolution”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 23, specifically claim 23 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 23 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical diagnosis codes, and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical procedural codes” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the additional elements are. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical diagnosis codes, and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical procedural codes”.
For example, “wherein the plurality of assessment alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical diagnosis codes, and the plurality of intervention alpha-numerical codes comprises one or more clinical procedural codes”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ September 16, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights