DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed October 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 253-255, 257-259, 261, 263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, 277, 278, and 280-282 have been amended. Claims 1-252, 264, 266, 269, 274, and 276 have been canceled. Claims 283-287 are new. Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes drawing amendments, pg. 20 of Remarks:
Amendments to the Drawings
Attached is Replacement Sheet 10/33, which includes Figure 2G. In Figure 2G, the word “vis” has been changed to “via”, and the abbreviation “MG” has been changed to ‘mg, thereby correcting minor typographical informalities. No new matter has been added.
Entered.
Applicant argues Objections to Drawings, pg. 21 of Remarks:
Objections to the Drawings
The Examiner objected to Figure 1C under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5) for including reference character 118, which was not mentioned in the Specification. The Applicanth as amended q [0133] of the Specification to mention reference character 118. The Applicant therefore respectfully submits that Figure 1C complies with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5), and respectfully requests that the outstanding Objections to the Drawings be withdrawn.
Noted. However, see Specification below.
Specification
The Office pointed out use of trademarks should be marked in the specification. There was no markup indicating the use of trademarks.
Applicant also amended their specification to fix other issues. However, Applicant is requested not to make any changes other than spelling corrections or obvious grammar issues.
Paragraph [0016] would not be entered as it does not address correcting notation on trademarks (QR code).
Paragraph [0091] would not be entered as the changes are not correcting spelling or grammar issues.
Paragraph [0136] was amended by replacing 164 with 264, where there is no 264 in Fig. 2H. This would not be entered.
Paragraphs [0133], [0142], [0148], [0149], [0209], [0228], [0231], [0232], [0233], [0248], and [0255] would have been entered.
Based on the above, the filed specification amendment will not be entered.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 21 of Remarks (footnotes omitted):
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected Claims 253-282 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter, and in particular, as being “directed to an abstract idea without significantly more”.! The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Independent Claim 253 recites a digital assistance system for automatically capturing emergency medical services (EMS) data to populate an electronic patient care record (ePCR). The digital assistance system comprises “a memory storing an ePCR comprising a plurality of data fields organized into a plurality of data field sections” and “at least one processor configured to execute a digital assistant’ to perform recited functionality. The Applicant has amended Claim 253 to specify that the plurality of data field sections comprise “at least a dispatch section and a patient assessment section”. Claim 253 has also been amended to specify that the digital assistant identifies the “at least one first ePCR data field corresponding to . . . unstructured data” using “at least one context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures”.
The Examiner asserts that Claim 253 recites “computer hardware . . . at a high-level of generality”, and therefore amounts to “no more than mere instructions to apply [an abstract idea] using a generic computer component’.?2 The Applicant respectfully traverses these assertions.
One indication that an additional element has integrated an abstract idea into a practical application under Alice/Mayo Step 2A Prong Two “is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field”.2 At least the claim elements of “identify, using at least one context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures, (a) at least one first ePCR data field corresponding to the unstructured data, and (b) at least one of the data field sections that includes the identified at least one first ePCR data field” and “transform, using the at least one context-specific natural language processor, at least a portion of the unstructured data to structured data comprising at least one data field value” provide examples of aspects of the claim that are directed to a practical application that improves at least a technical field.
Respectfully, using a natural language processor at a high level is not improving technology.
In particular, vocabulary, syntax, and/or text structure may vary between contexts and the more refined and tailored to the specific context a natural language processing model is, the more efficiently and accurately the model can operate to generate structured text. For example, a natural language processing model for structured text related to drowning may vary from a northern climate where cold water drownings are likely to a southern climate where cold water drownings are unusual.’ Thus a natural language processing model may identify intents and/or values by virtue of having been trained to understand the particular medical terminology, syntax, and/or grammar used by particular caregivers.
The natural language processing itself is not improved as claimed. Claim 253 just uses a context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures. This is claimed at too high a level as it is just using a trained model.
The combination of features recited in Claim 253 provides an improved natural language processing model that is refined based on “textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures’. This facilitates accurate identification of ePCR data fields corresponding to unstructured data received from a user interface device, and in turn, facilitates accurate transformation of the unstructured data and population of an ePCR data field. Such application of a specifically-tailored natural language processing model cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and the Applicant therefore respectfully submits that this provides a technical improvement under Alice/Mayo Step 2A Prong Two.
The above may not be a mental process, but it is recited at too high a level of generality.
Another indication that an additional element has integrated an abstract idea into a practical application under Alice/Mayo Step 2A Prong Two is the particularity of the application of the identified abstract idea.” Here, Claim 253 recites particularized features that confine any identified abstract idea to a practical application. The Examiner has asserted that Claim 253 sets forth or describes features that amount to “managing relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions”. However, even accepting this assertion only for the sake of argument, Claim 253 recites a particular way of capturing EMS data to populate an ePCR. This confines any managing of relationships or interactions between people to a particular, practical application of capturing EMS data to populate an ePCR.
Capturing data is usually insignificant extra solution activity. Populating a record such as storing is also usually insignificant extra solution activity if not itself abstract.
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 253 recites a combination of additional elements that integrate any identified abstract idea into a Independent Claim 253 and corresponding dependent Claims 254-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-282 therefore recite patent eligible subject matter. Claims 264, 266, 269, 274, and 276 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. The Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the outstanding rejections of Claims 253-282 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
From MPEP 2106.05(a)…
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08(Fed. Cir. 2016).
“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court is agreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim “as a whole,” in other words, the claim should be evaluated “as an ordered combination, without ignoring the
requirements of the individual steps.” When performing this evaluation, examiners should be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313,120 USPQ2d at 1100.”
There is no indication the claims are reciting components or steps of an improvement to technology. The claim is just using an existing trained context-specific natural language processor. Based on above, the rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 24 of Remarks (footnotes omitted):
Based on Applicant’s amendment of their claims, the rejection is withdrawn at this time. However, the amendment relied upon needs to be supported in the specification (see 35 USC 112(a) rejection below).
Specification
The use of the terms “Quick Response” and “QR code” and “QR”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are directed to a system, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified system Claim 253 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 253 recites the limitations of:
A digital assistance system for automatically capturing emergency medical services (EMS) data to populate an electronic patient care record (ePCR), the system comprising:
a memory storing an ePCR comprising a plurality of data fields organized into a plurality of field sections comprising at least a dispatch section and a patient assessment section; and
at least one processor configured to execute a digital assistant to
receive input from at least one user interface (UI) device, the input comprising unstructured data corresponding to a human language communication regarding a patient encounter with EMS,
identify, using at least one context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures, (a), at least one first ePCR data field corresponding to the unstructured data, and (b) at least one of the data field sections that includes the identified at least one first ePCR data field,
transform, using the at least one context-specific natural language processor, at least a portion of the unstructured data to structured data comprising at least one data field value, and
populate the at least one first ePCR data field in the ePCR with the structured data.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper. A person can store by remembering or using pen and paper patient care record data. A person can write down (receive input) unstructured data regarding a patient encounter, a person can identify a data field corresponding to unstructured data and data field sections, transform mentally or with pen and paper unstructured data to structured data by cataloging or categorizing the data, and write down (populate) the data in the patient record. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C where using a computer for a mental process has been shown to be abstract. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
The claims are also abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receive unstructured data regarding a patient encounter with EMS (emergency medical services) is managing relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. Also, activity between a person and a computer can fall within certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Also, para. [0002] and ePCR contains record of observations and treatments for a patient encounter.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites: digital assistance system, memory, processor, digital assistant, user interface device, natural language processor (Claim 253). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The natural language processor trained on textual structures appears to be a generic language processor and is claimed at a high level of generality. Transform unstructured language to structured language using the natural language processor is also claimed at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 253 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as storing and receive are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claim 253 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 254-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 253 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claim 273 recites a cloud or edge server at a high level of generality. Claims 255, 270, 271, 277, 280, 281, 285, and 286 recite natural language processor at a high level of generality. Claims 254, 256, and 282 recite user interface device at a high level of generality. Claims 254 recite components of a computer (microphone, touchscreen, etc.) at a high level of generality. Claims 270 and 275 recite a generic medical device at a high level. Therefore, the claims 254-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 253 recites “identify, using at least one context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures, … (b) at least one of the data field sections that includes the identified at least one first ePCR data field,…” where no teaching of identify a data field section using context-specific natural language processor trained specific to EMS patient transport services or procedures can be found in the specification.
The specification teaches:
“In the patient data charting device, the at least one processor may be configured to execute operations to identify the at least one second data field based on an organizational structure of the ePCR. The organizational structure of the ePCR may include data field sections organized according to medical procedure categories and/or medical condition categories. The data field section may include one or more of a dispatch section, a patient assessment section, or a respiratory/cardiac section. The at least one processor may be configured to execute operations to identify the at least one second data field as being procedurally related to the at least one first data field and generate the at least one prompt in response to the identification of the procedural relationship. The procedural relationship may correspond to a relationship between steps in an iterative diagnosis procedure based on a patient's presentation. The at least one first data field may include one of observation data, intervention data, physiological sensor data, and diagnosis data, and the at least one second data field may include at least one other of the observation data, the intervention data, the physiological sensor data, and the diagnosis data related to the at least one first data field. The at least one first data field and the at least one second data field may be procedurally related by being associated with a same treatment protocol. The same treatment protocol may be defined within at least one of a diagnostic sequence of activities and/or data entry and an intervention sequence of activities and/or data entry.”
Therefore, the above teaches identify a data field based on organizational structure, not identify a section using context-specific natural language processing. For examination purposes this is interpreted as identify using the context-specific natural language processor that includes EMS transport data a field section.
The above therefore teaches identify a second data field, not identify sections.
Claims 254-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 253.
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.
Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 253 recites “identify, using at least one context-specific natural language processor trained on textual structures specific to at least one of EMS patient transport services or EMS patient transport procedures, … (b) at least one of the data field sections that includes the identified at least one first ePCR data field,…” where it is indefinite as to identify a section using natural language processor. A natural language processor interprets language. For examination purposes this is interpreted as a language processor that somehow interprets sections.
Claims 254-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 253.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Rejection
The prior art rejection is withdrawn based on the claim amendments and further search and consideration. The best prior art found to date is Pub. No. US 2020/0251225 to Murrish. Murrish teaches using natural language processing for emergency services. Further, newly cited reference Pub. No. US 2020/0051675 to Nelson et al. teaches dispatch section and assessment section. What is not taught is identify using context-specific natural language processor at least one of the data field sections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches at least sections with emergency services:
US-20200051675-A1; US-20080126134-A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684