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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 03/19/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-12 and 14-17 have been amended; claim 13 remains unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 11/24/2021
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous objections. Examiner withdraws these objections.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(b) claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant argues in view of McRO and states that the present claims are similar in that they improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. Applicant further states that the claim limitations cannot be practically performed within the human mind. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. First, the abstract idea is not directed towards mental processes, rather, the abstract idea can be explained under certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
Applicant also states that the usage of batch-wise processing and database-driven symptom-disease mapping reflects a technical mechanism for large-scale medical data analysis. Batch-wise processing and symptom-disease mapping however are not limited to a computing environment.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant states that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, by improving the functioning of computerized medical query systems. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims do not provide such an improvement. The technical problem and solution are not totally clear as explained by Applicant or the specification. The improvement appears to be directed towards the data which is being analyzed. Making an assessment using more/different data is not necessarily a technical improvement, though it may be considered as an improvement to an abstract idea involving making an assessment using data.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues with respect to BASCOM and states that the present claims are similar. The claims of BASCOM recite user-specific web filters that are non-conventionally and non-routinely located at the ISP server rather than a user’s device. Applicant states that the present claims operate together to transform raw user inputs into prioritized medical queries, which is not a routine or generic use of a computer. The present claims however are not similar to those of BASCOM because the claims lack a non-routine/non-conventional arrangement in a similar manner. The claims as whole recite an abstract idea with additional elements which do not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-8 are drawn to a system, claims 9-16 are drawn to a method, and claim 17 is drawn to a device, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-17 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system for generating adaptive medical queries to determine disease symptoms, the system comprising:
a) --a processor;
b) --a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the processor to:
1) --receive one or more inputs from a user, in response to one or more queries corresponding to one or more symptoms associated with a disease of the user;
2) --determine, if a previous query from the one or more queries is a symptomatic query, and determine, if each of the one or more inputs from the user is an affirmative input;
3) --extract a set of contextual attributes corresponding to a medical context, from the one or more inputs received from the user, when the one or more queries is the symptomatic query, and each of the one or more inputs from the user is the affirmative input;
4) --identify batch-wise candidate attributes from the extracted set of contextual attributes, and sort the batch-wise candidate attributes corresponding to each of the one or more symptoms, in a display order;
5) --map the one or more symptoms in the sorted batch-wise candidate attributes to the disease, by searching a medical knowledge database;
6) --calculate a disease-symptom weighed score for the mapped one or more symptoms to the disease, by retrieving a symptom bucket corresponding to the disease in a knowledge graph;
7) --filter the one or more symptoms based on an age and a gender of the user, and sort the one or more symptoms based on the calculated disease-symptom weighed score and an inter-dependency on other attributes in the batch-wise candidate attributes of each symptom;
8) --transmit the filtered and sorted one or more symptoms to a natural language generation layer for converting the one or more symptoms, attribute canonical names, and unique Identities (IDs) to a human-understandable form; and
9) --generate subsequently, one or more adaptive medical queries in the human-understandable form, by predicting the one or more adaptive medical queries based on the converted one or more symptoms, the attribute canonical names, and the unique Identities (IDs), to determine the disease of the user.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receive one or more inputs from a user, in response to one or more queries corresponding to one or more symptoms associated with a disease of the user, 2) determine, if a previous query from the one or more queries is a symptomatic query, and determine, if each of the one or more inputs from the user is an affirmative input, 3) extract a set of contextual attributes corresponding to a medical context, from the one or more inputs received from the user, when the one or more queries is the symptomatic query, and each of the one or more inputs from the user is the affirmative input, 4) identify batch-wise candidate attributes from the extracted set of contextual attributes, and sort the batch-wise candidate attributes corresponding to each of the one or more symptoms, in a display order, 5) map the one or more symptoms in the sorted batch-wise candidate attributes to the disease, by searching a medical knowledge database, 6) calculate a disease-symptom weighed score for the mapped one or more symptoms to the disease, by retrieving a symptom bucket corresponding to the disease in a knowledge graph, 7) filter the one or more symptoms based on an age and a gender of the user, and sort the one or more symptoms based on the calculated disease-symptom weighed score and an inter-dependency on other attributes in the batch-wise candidate attributes of each symptom, 8) transmit the filtered and sorted one or more symptoms to a natural language generation layer for converting the one or more symptoms, attribute canonical names, and unique Identities (IDs) to a human-understandable form and 9) generate subsequently, one or more adaptive medical queries in the human-understandable form, by predicting the one or more adaptive medical queries based on the converted one or more symptoms, the attribute canonical names, and the unique Identities (IDs), to determine the disease of the user. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could assess a user’s input to determine another query to ask a user.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 5) map the one or more symptoms in the sorted batch-wise candidate attributes to the disease, by searching a medical knowledge database and 6) calculate a disease-symptom weighed score for the mapped one or more symptoms to the disease, by retrieving a symptom bucket corresponding to the disease in a knowledge graph. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward, the above abstract concepts will be considered as a single abstract idea. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-8 and 10-16 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 10 add the additional steps of “receive one or more symptoms of the disease as an input to one or more queries which are reasoning-based queries, from the user”, “determine top ‘n’ disease scores with a highest probability, based on the received one or more symptoms of the disease, and the age and the gender of the user”, “determine top ‘k’ disease scores, by calculating a heuristic score using the received one or more symptoms”, “determine candidate symptoms of the determine top ‘k’ disease scores, and compute candidate symptom scores based on the symptom bucket, and pre-defined disease”, “analyze, if the top ‘n’ disease scores are greater or equal to the top ‘k’ disease scores with respect to the computed candidate symptom scores”, “map the candidate symptoms to the disease, by searching the medical knowledge database, when the top ‘n’ disease scores are greater or equal to the top ‘k’ disease scores”, “calculate the disease-symptom weighed score for the mapped candidate symptoms to the disease, by retrieving a symptom bucket corresponding to the disease in a knowledge graph”, “filter the one or more symptoms based on the age and the gender of the user, and sort the one or more symptoms based on the calculated disease-symptom weighed score and pre-defined deceased scores”, and “transmit the filtered and sorted candidate symptoms to the natural language generation layer for converting the candidate symptoms to the human-understandable form”; claims 3 and 16 add the additional steps of “iterate over all diseases, to sum the disease-symptom weighted score for each disease”, “determine a probability score of each disease, for the summed-up disease-symptom weighted score”, “determine the sum of the probability score of all the diseases”, “calculate a normalized disease score from the probability score of each disease and the sum of the probability score of all the diseases”, “calculate a symptom score of each disease, based on the disease-symptom weightage score and the normalized disease score”, and “update the symptom score for each disease, and update a final symptom score, by summing the symptom score of each disease”; and claims 5 and 15 add the additional steps of “determine at least one of an insurance policy, an insurance premium, a health index, and a preventive measures guided by one or more health authorities, upon receiving a response from the user for the one or more adaptive medical queries” and “generate the determined at least one of the insurance policy, the insurance premium, the health index, and the preventive measures guided by one or more health authorities”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 4, 6-8 and 11-14 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-8 and 10-16 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 9 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a user equipment comprising a) a processor and b) a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions to perform the claimed steps.
The a) processor and b) memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0053] where there is a general-purpose computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a processor and b) a memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates queries utilizing a) a processor and b) a memory, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-17 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights