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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 253, 255, 256, 262, 263, 267, 268, 270-273, 277-281, 283, and 285-287 have been amended. Claims 1-252, 264-266, 269, and 274-276 have been canceled. Claims 288 and 289 are new. Claims 253-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues Specification, pg. 26 of Remarks (footnotes omitted):
Specification
The Examiner asserts that the terms "Quick Response", "QR code" and "QR" are tradenames or trademarks that should be accompanied by generic terminology and capitalized. The Applicant has amended the Specification to replace the terms "QR code" and "QR" with generic terminology. The Applicant respectfully submits that the term "Quick Response" is not used as a tradename or trademark in this application.
Applicant has replaced “quick response” or “QR” code with matrix barcode. Two-dimensional barcode would also work.
Respectfully, there are inconsistencies with what Applicant has done. Para. [0016] replaced “quick response QR code” with “matrix barcode” yet para. [0125] did not do this.
The Applicant has amended ¶[0136] to replace reference numeral 164 with reference numeral 264, thereby correcting an obvious typographical informality. The Examiner previously asserted that reference numeral 264 does not exist in Figure 2H. 2 The Applicant respectfully disagrees; a copy of Figure2H, which includes reference numeral 264 in the top left corner, is reproduced here for the Examiner's convenience.
There have been several changes to the specification for minor corrections in addition to the above. The amended paragraphs are entered.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 27 of Remarks (footnotes omitted):
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, and in particular, as being "directed to an abstract idea without significantly more". More specifically, the Examiner asserts that the claims recite elements "that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper". The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains one or more limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation. The Applicant has amended independent Claim 253 to recite a combination of features which cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the Applicant has amended independent Claim 253 to recite, among other things, "identify, based on the unstructured input, an intent to document information required by at least one of the recordation sections of the ePCR" and "generate a metric that indicates a confidence that the identified intent is an actual intent".
It is not possible to practically perform in the human mind operations such as "extract, from [an] unstructured input, an intent to document information required by at least one of [a plurality of] recordation sections of [an] ePCR" and "generate a metric that indicates a confidence that the identified intent is an actual intent", as recited in Claim 253. As disclosed in the Specification, extracting an intent involves application of "one or more specialized natural language processing models trained to understand medical terminology, syntax, and grammar utilized by caregivers". Claim 253 therefore recites operations necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in natural language processing. Thus the claimed elements cannot be considered to be a "mental process" and are not directed to a judicial exception. Therefore the claimed elements must be further analyzed as an "additional element" under Alice/Mayo Step 2A Prong Two.
With all due respect, a person can understand language and write down information. Further, even if natural language processing itself is not abstract, it is recited at a high level of generality.
From Applicant’s specification…
“From a theoretical perspective, ePCRs are completed contemporaneously with, i.e.,
during, the ongoing encounter. However, entering this data during the encounter diverts the attention of the EMS caregiver away from the patient and reduces the amount of time the EMS caregiver can devote to patient care. This is particularly true if the documentation process relies on hands-on data entry. For example, data entry to a computing device, such as a tablet, laptop, or other mobile device processing the ePCR may require manual entry via a touchscreen, keyboard, stylus, or another manual data entry device. This aspect of ePCR screens can make it time consuming and difficult to enter patient and encounter information. In some implementations, the ePCR may include 50-1000 fields for which a data entry is required ( e.g., required by laws of a state or another jurisdiction and/or required for adherence to a data collection standard). Since the user may not be able to reduce or customize the number of data entry fields, at least at the point of care, the accuracy and completeness of the ePCR may improve as a result of automated filling of at least a portion of these fields. The voluminous number of required fields may cause users to skip or rush through these fields, particularly in the context of an emergency response. However, skipped, inaccurate, and/or incomplete data entry may negatively affect patient care and patient outcomes. Such reduction or inaccuracy reduces the ability of a digitally assisted recordation system to provide caregiver guidance and results in a reduction in the accuracy and completeness of information passed from an initial emergency care encounter to a subsequent hospital encounter.” [0093]
Automating a manual process has also been shown to be abstract.
The Examiner asserts that "using a natural language processor at a high level is not improving technology". At the outset, the Applicant notes that the additional details added to Claim 253 make clear that the claim does not set forth or describe using a natural language processor "at a high level". But more importantly, the Office has recently affirmed that much of the advancement in computer technology "consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes". Moreover, because software "can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can", the Federal Circuit has held that an eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea".
Respectfully, if Applicant has improved natural language processing, it is not being claimed.
In this case, the claimed intent identification and confidence metric generation provide a non-abstract improvement to software as defined by the logical structures and processes as claimed. The inventors have recognized that 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. 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. 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. This intent identification and confidence metric generation therefore provides a technical improvement under Alice/Mayo Step 2A Prong Two.
From Applicant’s Claim 253:
“use at least one natural language processor trained to identify, within communications articulated in a human language, data elements defined in an EMS ePCR standard,
extract, from the unstructured input, an intent to document information required by at least one of the recordation sections of the ePCR,
generate a metric that indicates a confidence that the identified intent is an actual intent,”
From Applicant’s argument above…
“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. 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.
Respectfully Applicant did not invent training, and the point of training a model is to improve accuracy. Also, “use” of a natural language processor is not improving natural language processing itself.
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 253-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-287 recite a combination of additional elements that integrate any identified abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 265 and 275 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. The Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Based on the above response, the rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(a) Rejection, pg. 29 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner rejected Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In particular, the Examiner asserts that the Specification does not disclose "identify a section using context-specific natural language processing".12 The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Amended Claim 253 does not recite "identify a section using context-specific natural language processing". This renders moot the Examiner's assertion that the Specification does not disclose "identify a section using context-specific natural language processing". The Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) be withdrawn.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendment.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(b) Rejection, starting pg. 29 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner rejected Claims 253-263, 265, 267, 268, 270-273, 275, and 277-287 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which is regarded as the invention. In particular, the Examiner asserts that "it is indefinite as to identify a section using natural language processor".13 The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Amended Claim 253 does not recite "identify a section using natural language processor". This renders moot the Examiner's assertion that "it is indefinite as to identify a section using natural language processor". The Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 253 particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which is regarded as the invention, and respectfully requests that the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) be withdrawn.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendment. However, the amended claims have caused a new rejection.
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, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 253-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 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 EMS electronic patient care record (ePCR), the system comprising:
a memory storing an ePCR comprising a plurality of data fields organized into a plurality of recordation sections, each recordation section comprising a plurality of ePCR data fields and at least one processor configured to execute a digital assistant to
receive unstructured input from at least one user interface (UI) device, the unstructured input comprising unstructured data corresponding to a human language communication regarding a patient encounter with EMS,
use at least one natural language processor trained to identify, within communications articulated in a human language, data elements defined in an EMS ePCR standard,
extract, from the unstructured input, an intent to document information required by at least one of the recordation sections of the ePCR,
generate a metric that indicates a confidence that the identified intent is an actual intent,
transform at least a portion of the unstructured data to structured data comprising at least one data field value, and
map the at least one data field value to a first ePCR data field within the at least on recordation section, and
populate the 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 with pen and paper can store a record by writing the record with pen and paper, where the paper can comprise data fields written by a person. A person can talk (unstructured input) comprising data regarding a patient encounter and identify data elements (by analyzing) defined in an EMS ePCR standard. A person can write down information from unstructured input (extract an intent) required by a recordation section. A person can write down a metric that indicates a confidence of an actual intent (check mark the intent). A person can with pen and paper transform data into a structured data, map and populate a data value into a first ePCR data field in a structured section. 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, user interface, 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 trained natural language processor appears to be a generic language processor and is claimed at a high level of generality. See also para. [0093] of using computer to solve a manual process of data entry. 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, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 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. Claims 254 recites generic interface device components of a computer (microphone, touchscreen, etc.) at a high level of generality. Claim 273 recites a cloud or edge server at a high level of generality. Claims 255, 257, 267, 268, 270-272, 277, 280, 281, and 285-287 recite use of the natural language processor at a high level of generality. Claims 256, and 282 recite user interface device at a high level of generality. Claim 270 recites a generic medical device at a high level. Claim 273 recites generic cloud server with processors or edge server at a high level of generality. Claim 282 recites generic computer device including memory, processor, UI device and smartphone. Claims 283 and 288 recites generic processor at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 254-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 253-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 253-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 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 “generate a metric that indicates a confidence that the identified intent is an actual intent,” where metric that indicates a confidence is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term “metric that indicates a confidence” in claim 253 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “metric that indicates a confidence” is 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. A metric that indicates a confidence could be any metric related to confidence, including a metric indicating low confidence as there is no standard for determining the metric that indicates confidence required.
Dependent claims 254-263, 267, 268, 270-273, and 277-289 are further rejected as they depend from their respective claim.
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
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
Prosecution Insights