DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to amendments filed on 02/16/2026 in which claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-20 are presented for examination; Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2,5 and 7 have been canceled.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a machine.
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
“A workflow optimisation system to perform at least one of: prioritisation of patients for a specific treatment pathway; distribution of patients to a specified treatment pathway; the system comprising: a database comprising medical data for one or more patients wherein the medical data comprises at least one of: medical imaging data, structured data, unstructured data; a patient discovery circuit comprising a data transformation model to transform received medical data into retrieved patient data, wherein the received medical data is transformed by one or more of: restructuring or reformatting the data, removing patient identifiable information, any other unnecessary data, producing data summaries, encoding raw data such medical images to facilitate their parsing, the data transformation model comprises an encoder for each of the medical imaging data, the structured data and the unstructured data, and each encoder outputs a vector for each of the medical imaging data, the structured data and the unstructured data, wherein the output vectors are input to a embedding merger to be fused to generate the single output vector for a patient; and a patient retrieval model, wherein the patient retrieval model analyses the transformed data;
a feature extraction circuit configured to process the retrieved patient data to produce structured data for each of the one or more patients, and aggregate the structured data to a single vector for each patient, where the single vector summarises medical features for the patient; and a patient distribution circuit for receiving the single vector for each patient and determining, from the single vector for each patient, at least one of: a patient prioritisation list to prioritise patients for distribution, and a patient distribution list to distribute the patients to one or more distribution targets..”
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to analyzing patient data to prioritize and assign patient to distribution targets(clinicians based on availability and work capacity). Any treatment path can be followed to prioritize or distribute/assign a patient based on medical data . Medical summaries and reports could be generated based on provided health data in a clinical setting. The assignment/distribution of patient based on priority level can be done using pen and paper.
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
system (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
medical imaging data (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
structured data, unstructured data Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
discovery circuit( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
data transformation model( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
restructuring or reformatting ( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
encoding( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
encoder( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
embedding merger (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
discovery circuit for receiving medical data (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
feature extraction circuit (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
vector (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
distribution circuit for receiving the single vector (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
patient retrieval model( Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the claim limitations:
discovery circuit for receiving medical data the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
distribution circuit for receiving the single vector the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6, and 8-19 , further narrows the abstract idea and add the additional elements of “ natural language queries” ,“patient matrix”, “similarity metric”, “neural network”, “aggregation model”, “aggregated vector”, “static model”, “distribution model”, “target state matrix”, “target state encoder”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks - 35 USC § 101
In remarks, Pg. 7, applicant contends:
“When properly read as a whole, amended claim 1 is directed to a workflow optimization system that can prioritize patients and/or distribute patients to a specific treatment pathway. This requires the use of a database, a patient discovery circuit that performs specific steps to transform input patient data to retrieved patient data by the use of an encoder and vector analysis. The retrieved patient data is analyzed by a feature extraction circuit to summaries the patient medical features as a single vector, and finally a patient distribution circuit uses the single vector for each patient to determine a patient prioritization list and a patient distribution list. These claim elements recite technical features and processing steps that simply cannot be performed in the human mind. The claims therefore fall squarely within the area of computer-implemented improvements to analysis of patient data and data processing of the patient data that are readily recognized as patent-eligible subject matter.”
Use of database , encoder and vector analysis is merely using computer as a tool to perform the operations. As described in 101 rejection above, feature extraction engine and distribution circuit are also used on apply level MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is clearly the use of technology and not a technical solution to technical problem. The data is being analyzed and extracted to determine prioritization and distribution for a treatment pathway for a patient. The workflow optimization can be done based on analyzing multimodal data; majority of decision making in medical field relies on analyzing multiple sources of data in different format such as patient’s report, medical imaging, and patient interactive notes etc...; based on these information, one can determine the severity of patient, and develop a distribution list based on priority. These sort of action are often performed in emergency setting, and urgent care etc..,where the resources are limited. The applicant is taking this abstract idea, and implementing it using machine learning, thus applying the machine learning as tool. The claims don’t present any technical detail, as to how the data processing technology, or machine learning itself is being improved; neither the claims and specification describe any technical problem being solved. The optimization in workflow, is not a technical improvement rather a solution to business problem (prioritizing the patients). As for as fusion and merging of the multimodal information, these aspect do represent technical/mathematical concepts, however the claims don’t provide any detail as to how the data fusion technology is being improved; rather the claims makes it clear that encoder for each type of data is being applied, and the output is merged. In absence of technical details, this falls within merely applying the computer as tool, and tying the abstract idea to technical environment such as machine learning.
In remarks, Pg. 7, applicant contends:
In this regard, we also refer to Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37 to 42 (uspto.gov), in particular, example 42, where a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated is considered to be allowable and not concerned with any judicial exceptions. Applicant believes the reasoning in that case can also be applied to this application and accordingly, the amended claim should be allowed. Notwithstanding the above comments, we will follow the Steps as prescribed from the assessment of allowable subject matter.”
The subject matter of example 42 was deemed eligible due to “the combination of additional specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.”
Here, the improvement is in sharing information in real time with remote users regardless of the format. It is not merely standardizing the data formats. The problem being solved in that example is sharing of information over network, when the information are not in same format. In instant application, different format data (multimodal data) is being encoded, and fused without providing any detail as how these steps are performed, and ow they represent the improvement into the data encoding or data fusion.
In remarks, Pg. 8, applicant contends:
“The Examiner asserts that Claim 1 is directed to a mental process. With respect, we do not agree with this assertion. The present claims recite technical operations performed by the patient discovery circuit, the feature extraction circuit and the patient distribution circuit that are not merely an abstract idea or a mental act. More specifically, these features relate to: processing of medical imaging data, encoding raw medical images, and fusion of multimodal vectors, all of which are technical, algorithmic steps that cannot be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the technical improvement of this invention relates to automated multimodal fusion of imaging data, structured data, and unstructured data to create a unified vector representation for downstream retrieval and distribution. This is an improvement to computer functionality and the specific technical field of medical workflow optimization.”
This argument has been addressed with regard to previous arguments, as processing , encoding and technical steps can be performed using a computer on apply level MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In remarks, Pg. 8-9, applicant contends:
This is clearly the position with the claim of this application, as a human mind would not be able to perform the specific steps executed by the various components of the system.. Furthermore, this memo also underscores that examiners must (i) not expand the "mental process" grouping to limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, such as the steps performed by the various system components in this invention, such as the patient discovery circuit; (ii) distinguish between elements that merely involve a judicial exception and those that expressly recite one; (iii) analyze the claim as a whole, focusing on whether it provides a technical improvement; (iv) avoid reducing claims to a mere "apply it" rationale; and (v) apply the preponderance standard, issuing a §101 rejection only where ineligibility is more likely than not. Again, these five steps, when correctly applied, support the assertion that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception. As such, the claimed invention does not fall within the realm of abstract ideas but rather represents a concrete application of technological principles to solve real-world challenges.”
The claim limitations involve analyzing patient data to prioritize and assign patient to distribution targets(clinicians based on availability and work capacity). Any treatment path can be followed to prioritize or distribute/assign a patient based on medical data . Medical summaries and reports could be generated based on provided health data in a clinical setting. The assignment/distribution of patient based on priority level can be done using pen and paper. Even if technological principles are implemented, they are merely on apply level.
In remarks, Pg. 9-10, applicant contends:
The prioritization and distribution of patients, as produced by the claim is a practical technological application that requires the use of specific circuitry for analyzing imaging data, structured, unstructured data; performing transformation steps such as restructuring or reformatting data, patient de-identification, to eventually generate a single patient vector used for the prioritization and distribution. These are not generic compute operations. They form a pipeline architecture linked to real-world clinical workflows. Applicant asserts that this satisfies the "practical application" test because the claim: improves data ingestion fidelity, improves patient routing accuracy, reduces clinician workload, and enables real-time automated distribution, or patient prioritization, and this cannot be considered as simply the performance of a mental act.”
Applicant claims only the use of specific circuitry , structured/unstructured data , transforming , restructuring data, but did not provide any detail of how these functions are performed. It is merely a conclusory statement that the technology is being used, without providing , how it is being used. Also, see the response to arguments above.
In remarks, Pg. 10, applicant contends:
“Although it not necessary to consider Step 2B in light of the arguments presented above, independent claim 1 also recites significantly more than any judicial exception. The claim recites additional elements beyond the idea of mere instructions using a generic computer component. Specifically the patient discovery circuit performs several new and inventive steps that cannot be considered as well understood, routine and conventional. The output from the patient distribution circuit is not an abstract output, instead it a patient prioritization list, or a patient distribution list determined from the single patient vector. This is clearly a technical improvement, not a mere mental step or act.”
As explained above, creating prioritization list based on multimodal data is an abstract idea, as professional can analyze data from multiple source, and determine the severity of patient, thus creating a prioritized list. Medical triage, performs such prioritization all the time, due to limited resources. Implementing this abstract concept, using machine learning is merely applying the machine learning. As mentioned above, the applicant does not provide any details as to how this implementation is being performed, and how it provides improvement. For example, claim merely states encoding different format of data, thus encoder is being applied, which is merely applying machine learning, as machine learning uses encoder/decoder architecture to process data.
In remarks, Pg. 11, applicant contends:
“Additionally, under the recent Ex parte Desjardins decision, the Board emphasized that claims reflecting improvements in computer technology or technical fields are patent eligible. Desjardins instructs Examiners to consider whether the claims recite improvements in how a computer or machine functions, and not to evaluate claims at an overbroad level of generality. In Desjardins, machine learning-related claims were held eligible because they embodied improvements in how the learning model operates and advanced computer technology. In summary, claim 1 is not simply a method of performing a mental act, because it is directed to a specific technical system that processes multimodal medical data using specific encoders and data analysis to generate a single patient vector. Thus, the claim provides a practical application for the analysis of medical data (imaging data and other data) through a multi-stage technical pipeline. In view of the foregoing, when the claims are analyzed under the proper framework, in light of the Board's August 4, 2025 memorandum, and the decision of September 26, 2025 in Ex Parte Desjardins it is clear that the present computer implemented method, is not "directed to" a judicial exception, but does contain patentable subject matter.”
All the applicant’s arguments boil down to claim language, claiming the technical aspects at high level, without any technical details that reflect a problem being solved or an improvement to technology. Regarding, Ex Parte Desjardins, the problem being solved is very specific, and the case facts don’t align with the instant claimed invention. In Ex Parte Desjardins, “the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification.”
Remarks - Prior Art
The applicant have not presented any arguments with regard to prior art; the applicant states on Pg. 6 of remarks, the allowable subject matter of objected claims have been incorporated into the independent claims, thus the prior art rejection have been withdrawn. For further information regarding allowability, please see “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the non-final office action mailed on 11/18/2025. The prior art search have been updated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00am - 5:00 pm) 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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights