DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 04/25/2024 claiming benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application: 63/462,138 filed 04/26/2023. Claim(s) 1 is/are pending in the application and has/have been examined.
2. It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
4. Application does not present any drawings associated with Specification.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text reciting “--with a LLM--” is objected to because the term reciting the acronym “LLM” needs to be defined at least once in said claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 is also rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The terms in italics reciting “accurately transcribing medical conversations without the need for cloud-based processing when used in conjunction with a LLM, thereby significantly reducing the system's overall cost” in claim 1 appear to be relative terms which render(s) the claim indefinite. The terms “accurately” “without the need” and “thereby significantly reducing the system's overall cost” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, Claim 1 recite(s) the following phrases “without the need” thereby significantly reducing” rendering said claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following said phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The mentioned terms feature an optional language that does not specifically define the metes and bounds of the claims. Thus, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph.
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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “an automated medical note writing system comprising (a) a mobile device with a local, on-device, real-time speech recognition model capable of accurately transcribing medical conversations without the need for cloud-based processing when used in conjunction with a LLM, thereby significantly reducing the system's overall cost.”
These may be practically performed in the human mind using pen and paper. For example, limitation (a) can be done by evaluation and judgement, where a person determines by auditory observation on an audio result evaluation of a predefined prompt audio message and recognizes content in that predefined prompt audio message in the form of “transcribing medical conversations without the need for cloud-based processing when used in conjunction with a LLM, thereby significantly reducing the system's overall cost” and writes it down as “performing an action according to the transcribed medical conversations.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions “transcribing” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong one).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “…a mobile device with a local, on-device, real-time speech recognition model … in conjunction with a LLM…” which are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Further, limitation (a) is recited as being performed by a computing device potentially including at least one processor (e.g., mobile device). The computing device is described as any generic computer device (Specification, see e.g., paras. 1, and 11 “…includes a system and method for real-time medical note generation using local speech recognition for transcription and cloud-based large language model (LLM) summarization…”; “…In various embodiments, LLMs may one day run offline on local devices as well. The introduction of mobile hardware specifically designed to LLM…”). As such, the processor (e.g., mobile device) is recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the computing device potentially including at least one processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of a computing device including at least one processor to perform limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Limitation (a) is/are considered mere data gathering and output, and are additionally well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do/does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., (Wang, Jixuan, et al. “PhenoPad: building AI enabled note-taking interfaces for patient encounters.” NPJ digital medicine 5.1 (2022): 12) in view of Gondi et al., (Gondi, Santosh, and Vineel Pratap. “Performance evaluation of offline speech recognition on edge devices.” Electronics 10.21 (2021): 2697), hereinafter referred to as WANG and GONDI.
With respect to Claim 1, WANG discloses:
1.An automated medical note writing system comprising a mobile device with a local, on-device, real-time speech recognition model capable of accurately transcribing medical conversations [without the need for cloud-based processing when used in conjunction with a LLM], thereby significantly reducing the system's overall cost (See e.g., “…PhenoPad is an intelligent clinical note-taking interface that captures free-form notes and standard phenotypic information via a variety of modalities, including speech and natural language processing techniques, handwriting recognition, and more. The output is unobtrusively presented on mobile devices to clinicians for real-time validation and can be automatically transformed into digital formats that would be compatible with integration into electronic health record systems…” (See e.g., WANG, Abstract, Fig. 1).
WANG, does not explicitly, but GONDI teaches the bracketed limitations comprising [without the need for cloud-based processing when used in conjunction with a LLM] (See e.g., “…transformer-based speech recognition systems on edge devices…” “…preparing and inferencing the pre-trained PyTorch models for on edge CPU- and GPU-based inferencing…”; “…configured Jetson Nano using the instructions on the Nvidia website. The Nano flash file comes with JetPack pre-installed, which includes all the CUDA libraries required for inferencing on GPU…For Nano, we needed to build torch from source with CUDA cmake option. Further, an upgrade was needed to Clang and LLVM compiler toolchain to use Clang for compiling PyTorch…” (See e.g., GONDI, Abstract, §§ 1, 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WANG’s intelligent clinical note-taking interface that captures free-form notes and standard phenotypic information via a variety of modalities, including speech and natural language processing techniques, handwriting recognition by incorporating GONDI’s “…transformer-based speech recognition systems on edge devices…” “…preparing and inferencing the pre-trained PyTorch models for on edge CPU- and GPU-based inferencing…”; “…configured Jetson Nano using the instructions on the Nvidia website. The Nano flash file comes with JetPack pre-installed, which includes all the CUDA libraries required for inferencing on GPU…For Nano, we needed to build torch from source with CUDA cmake option. Further, an upgrade was needed to Clang and LLVM compiler toolchain to use Clang for compiling PyTorch…” in order to contribute to improve “the major disadvantage of server-based speech recognition [is] the lack of privacy and security for user speech data. Additionally, because of network dependency…server-based architecture cannot always be reliable, performant and available. Nevertheless, offline speech recognition on client devices overcomes these issues…” (See e.g., GONDI, Abstract).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Peinl et al., (Peinl, René, Basem Rizk, and Robert Szabad. “Open source speech recognition on edge devices.” 2020 10th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE, 2020. (Year: 2020)), discloses, an architecture covering how, see e.g., “…deep learning has revived the field of automatic speech recognition (ASR) in the last ten years and pushed recognition rates into regions on par with humans. Applications like Siri, Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant are very popular, but have inherent privacy problems. In this paper, we evaluate state of the art open source ASR models regarding their usability in a smart speaker without cloud, both in terms of accuracy and runtime performance on cost-effective low power edge devices. We found Kaldi to be the most accurate solution and also among the fastest ones. It runs more than fast enough on an Nvidia Jetson Nano. It is still not on par with commercial cloud services, but getting close to it…” (See e.g., Peinl et al., Abstract).
Please, see for additional references PTO-892.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Edgar Guerra-Erazo whose telephone number is (571) 270-3708. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on (571) 272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
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.
/EDGAR X GUERRA-ERAZO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656