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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 27 OCT 2025.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 16, 19, 21 entered and considered, as well as the recent cancellation of 9-12, 14, 15, 23-26
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 16, 18-21 pending and examined.
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, 5-7, 13, 16, 18-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 16, 18-21 the independent claim(s) 1, 13, 16 recite(s) a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 16, 18-21 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 13, 16) is/are directed, as shown in exemplary claim 1, in part, to
A system for providing enhanced medical symptom checker, said system comprising;
receive an input query from one or more users associated with the plurality of
extract a first set of attributes from the received input query, wherein the first set of attributes pertain to the one or more symptoms of the disease;
extract a second set of attributes from the received input query, the second set of attributes pertain to demographic conditions and location;
map the one or more symptoms with a set of parameters wherein the set of parameters are determined by searching a medical knowledge-base for similarity of the set of parameters based on the extracted first set of attributes and second set of attributes in the one or more symptoms, wherein the medical knowledge- based comprises static medical resources, medical databases, online medical resources, and peer reviewed journals for a target disease wherein a knowledge graph comprises one or more knowledge features associated with medical knowledge base wherein one or more medical entities form nodes of said knowledge graph and are interconnected to each other with edges representing weights such that the knowledge graph models dependencies between symptom attributes and symptom attribute values wherein the knowledge graph is coupled with appropriate visual representations of medical knowledge that is easily and accurately comprehensible to the one or more users and wherein the system is further configured to allow for factoring in a plurality of dimensions of medical knowledge whose dynamic nature works to augment accuracy of diagnosis of medical knowledge whose dynamic nature works to augment accuracy of diagnosis prediction; and,
diagnose the disease based on the mapped one or more symptoms with the set of parameters associated with the target disease,
wherein the system is further configured to collect a plurality of points of data chosen by a plurality of medical experts to gather refine and enrich the medical knowledgebase, and perform a feedback analysis executed by the plurality of medical experts, wherein the feedback analysis is based on a plurality of triages performed by the plurality of medical experts mimicking a plurality of clinical scenarios, wherein each said triage includes the target disease, age, gender, one or more symptoms and context applicable to the plurality of clinical scenarios, such that based on the feedback the one or more knowledge features in the knowledge graph are updated, and in case a new feature I identified, said new feature is added to schema of the knowledge graph, and wherein after the plurality of triages are simulated by the medical experts, abnormalities or medically incorrect responses generated by the system are iteratively identified as part of the feedback signals from the triages to improve accuracy of the system, wherein the system is further coupled to a user
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Receiving a query, extracting attributes from the query, mapping using the first and second attributes and parameters using existing medical knowledge, to diagnose a disease based on the information, and collecting/updating data points to update a knowledge map all encompass such concepts as identified above with regard to a concept performed in the human mind. Examiner also finds that the claims recite certain methods of human activities, including following instructions and/or the interactions between the user and the system(s). The user dialog and the interactions therein including the selection and the symptom question/answer process are all examples of said method.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements to perform the claim steps: Claim 1 recites “one or more processors” coupled to “a plurality of first computing devices” coupled with a “memory which stores instructions..;” claim 13 recites similar elements with the addition of a “user equipment,” and claim 16 recites similar elements to claim 1. The claims have also been amended to include a user interface. The processors, computing device(s), and “memory” as well as the user equipment are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner in the interest of compact prosecution finds similarly with regard to the “user equipment” – this is at best applying the technology to the judicial exception(s) or implementing the abstract idea on a computer. “Memory” storing data, and an interface displaying it, is found to be analogous to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the above elements as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claim 1 recites “one or more processors” coupled to “a plurality of first computing devices” coupled with a “memory which stores instructions..;” claim 13 recites similar elements with the addition of a “user equipment,” and claim 16 recites similar elements to claim 1. The claims have been amended to include an interface for displaying data. When considered individually, these identified claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[0069] In an aspect, the system (110) may comprise one or more processor(s) (202). The one or more processor(s) (202) may be implemented as one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that process data based on operational instructions. Among other capabilities, the one or more processor(s) (202) may be configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (204) of the system (110). The memory (204) may be configured to store one or more computer-readable instructions or routines in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which may be fetched and executed to create or share data packets over a network service. The memory (204) may comprise any non-transitory storage device including, for example, volatile memory such as RAM, or non-volatile memory such as EPROM, flash memory, and the like.
[0077] FIG. 2B illustrates an exemplary representation (250) of the user equipment (UE) (108), in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. In an aspect, the UE (108) may comprise a processor (222). The more processor (222) may be implemented as one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that process data based on operational instructions. Among other capabilities, the processor(s) (222) may be configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (224) of the UE (108). The memory (224) may be configured to store one or more computer-readable instructions or routines in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which may be fetched and executed to create or share data packets over a network service. The memory (224) may comprise any non-transitory storage device including, for example, volatile memory such as RAM, or non-volatile memory such as EPROM, flash memory, and the like.
[0158]… As shown in FIG. 8, computer system 800 can include an external storage device 810, a bus 820, a main memory 830, a read only memory 840, a mass storage device 850, communication port 860, and a processor 870. A person skilled in the art will appreciate that the computer system may include more than one processor and communication ports. Processor 870 may include various modules associated with embodiments of the present invention. Communication port 860 may be chosen depending on a network to which computer system connects. Memory 830 can be Random Access Memory (RAM), or any other dynamic storage device commonly known in the art. Read-only memory 840 can be any static storage device(s). Mass storage 870 may be any current or future mass storage solution, which can be used to store information and/or instructions.
As per the user interface, Examiner does not find this to amount to anything more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Displaying information on an interface is generally considered to be an example of adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g). As no improvement or other evidence is found, Examiner does not find that these additional elements support a finding of a practical application. As per a finding of significantly more, beyond the claim language found to be repeated in the body of the specification, Examiner turns to Applicant’s specification at:
[0070] In an embodiment, the system (110) may include an interface(s) 206. The interface(s) 206 may comprise a variety of interfaces, for example, interfaces for data input and output devices, referred to as I/O devices, storage devices, and the like. The interface(s) 206 may facilitate communication of the system (102). The interface(s) 206 may also provide a communication pathway for one or more components of the centralized server (112).
[0159] Bus 820 communicatively couples processor(s) 870 with the other memory, storage and communication blocks. Optionally, operator and administrative interfaces, e.g. a display, keyboard, joystick and a cursor control device, may also be coupled to bus 820 to support direct operator interaction with a computer system. Other operator and administrative interfaces can be provided through network connections connected through communication port 860.
As such, Examiner finds these claims to be directed to an abstract idea without a finding of significantly more.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – a computer receives information from another computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 3, 5-7, 18-21,
Dependent claims, 3, 5-7, 18-21, are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the additional steps regarding the mental process of diagnosis identified above, as well as further refining the mathematical concepts inherent in the modeling identified above, as well as the addition of analysis steps in the instructions for diagnosis. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
1, 3, 5-7, 9-16, 18-21, 23-26 are believed to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art of record is believed to be;
Gnanasambandam et al (US 20220300713 A1, hereinafter Gnanasambandam),
Datla et al (US 20190252074 A1, hereinafter Datla).
Guest, “Tell your smartphone where it hurts: new app intuitively tracks pain,” hereinafter
Gnanasambandam teaches medical knowledge base constructed from static, universal medical databases/resources, using one or more elements from multiple databases, and using said knowledge graph to diagnose a disease with one or more elements or symptoms represented in the nodes of the graph. Based on feedback outcome fed back into the model the knowledge graph is updated based on the reported actions of the medical personnel in the progress of treatment.
Datla teaches a knowledge graph wherein the nodes are associated with a given source for the knowledge base, i.e. the medical databases, and further teaches wherein the nodes are interconnected by weights of the dependencies of the symptom attributes, and further teaches applicability to updating the knowledge graph via treatments.
Guest teaches a mobile application where a user may enter and see representation of the body in order to make the query/request for a medical opinion.
Examiner finds that the applicability to triage of the weighted knowledge graph is not fairly taught in the references, particularly in combination with the amended weighted construction/relationship of the symptoms in the knowledge graph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 27 JULY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant begins a discussion of the 101 rejection on page 11, with a large selection of relevant USPTO Guidance into page 12. Further on page 12/13/14 Applicant provides a reproduction of exemplary claim 1.
On page 15 Applicant appears to be arguing an improvement to the computer is found in the claims, analogous to McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees – McRO was found eligible as it automated something that was previously only able to be performed by a human. Examiner notes that McRO while ultimately representing eligibility, also recited an abstract idea, and as such Examiner is unclear how this supports Applicant’s position that no abstract idea is present.
Examiner does not find any such improvements in the amended claim language. Applicant’s remarks show the actual process as claimed to be improved by the use of the additional elements, the elements themselves are not improved in their functioning by the claim limitations. Applicant’s remarks appear to support Examiners position, in that a user selection is required to make the determination(s) of the independent claim. Further, the volume of data reviewed is a part of the abstract idea rather than consideration at an improvement discussion. Applicant’s remarks regarding the methods of human activity category on page 17 are also found unpersuasive, as again, the computing elements are merely applied rather than improved in some way. Contrary to Applicant’s remarks on page 17 no improvement to the computers own “data organization” is found in the use of a weighted knowledge graph, as newly amended. Applicant’s remarks support Examiners position in that again, a human interaction is required. This is not analogous to a self-referential table as the access to the data is not improved.
Further on page 17, Applicant turns to step 2A prong two to discuss a practical application. Again, Examiner notes that the solution presented is technical, but the problem identified is decidedly not technical. The remaining remarks are found unpersuasive. Applicant reproduces limitations of the claims on page 18, however Examiner finds many of these elements are addressed at the abstract idea rather than as additional elements. Adding a user’s selection to the interface is similarly not found to be an improvement. Examiner did not allege that the feedback mechanism is data gathering, and instead is a part of the abstract idea.
On page 17 Applicant turns to step 2B, with relevant portions of the MPEP. Applicant cites analogy to BASCOM, however, Applicant only concludes that the claim limitations identified represent such a combination of elements analogous to BASCOM per se. Modeling dependency is more appropriately considered as descriptive of the abstract idea(s) identified. Well understood routine and conventional is not the sole test or factor in determining if significantly more is present. Applicant again references the prior art, but as noted above, the prior art is a separate inquiry from subject matter eligibility. Applicant’s remaining remarks are found unpersuasive/moot in view of the discussion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights