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 Arguments
Applicant’s has requested that the Double Patenting rejection be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter has been identified.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 in regards to claims 1-20 have been considered, however are not found to be persuasive due to the following reasons. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments because the Dec. 5, 2025 update and Ex parte Desjardins do not make every claim that uses a computer interface patent eligible. The guidance requires the claim to be considered as a whole, but it also requires the claims steps, not merely statements in the specification, to reflect a specific improvement to computer operation or another technology. Unlike the particular machine-learning improvements addressed in Desjardins, claim 1 does not recite a new natural language processing architecture, speech recognition technique, data structure, or method for handling noisy redundant, or verbose speech. Instead, it broadly receives different types of input, interprets the inputs as actions, selects patient related information, forms commands, and navigates an HER. These are information evaluation and selection activities performed using an interface, rather than a specifically claimed technological improvement. The argument that the claim does not monopolize the entire idea is also insufficient because the absence of complete preemption does not, by itself, establish patent eligibility.
Applicant’s argument that a person could not practically process all of the multimodal inputs mentally is also not persuasive. The rejection need not treat every individual element as something performed entirely in the human mind; the claim may still recite the abstract process of understanding a request, identifying possible actions and patient-specific options, selecting a patient, and deciding what navigation command should be carried out. The text, sound, icon, HER, patient-list, and navigation state limitations merely place that process in a computer and healthcare environment. Although Applicant states that the interface reduces clicks and improves navigation, claim 1 describes that desired benefit without claiming the particular technical means that produces it. Merely receiving sound that contains “noise, redundancy, and verbosity” does not improve speech technology because the claim does not explain how those characteristics are detected, removed, or processed. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract information processing steps into a practical technological application or add significantly more than using an interface to perform those steps.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 have been considered and found persuasive, and the rejection has been withdrawn. See detailed reason for allowance below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are about taking user inputs (text/voice/icon selections), interpreting them into actions, selecting patient-related options, and navigating an EHR interface accordingly. That is fundamentally an information-processing/workflow navigation concept implemented on a computer interface, rather than a concrete technical improvement to how computers or speech processing work.
The claims recites an abstract idea in the form of mental processes (e.g., interpreting language into “verbs” and associated actions; selecting patient specific parameters; selecting a patient; forming commands) and organizing human activity (managing and navigating patient record information in a healthcare workflow). These claims are grouping of abstract ideas. Grouping of abstract ideas into categories including mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The extra features in the claims (natural language interface; receiving text/sound/icon inputs; displaying a patient list; changing a navigational state) are generic user-interface and data navigation steps, not a specific technical solution. The claim mentions sound having “noise, redundancy, and verbosity,” but it does not recite a particular speech/noise-handling technique or a concrete algorithm that improves computer/speech technology. The USPTO guidance indicates that claims are more likely eligible when additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application, such as by improving computer functionality or another technology; that kind of specific technical improvement is not apparent from this claim text.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in data management.
Claims 2 and 12: adds only generic input modalities (voice + icon taps) for giving a request, which is just routine UI interaction.
Claims 3 and 13: merely displays command options in a “prioritized list,” i.e., organizing/presenting information for navigation.
Claims 4 and 14: merely ranks options using context/history/workflow/patient data, i.e., an abstract recommendation/decision rule based on information.
Claims 5 and 15: describes high-level language reformatting (rearranging stored words into command syntax), i.e., abstract data manipulation.
Claims 6 and 16: describes deriving commands from ordered linguistic components in a database, i.e., generic parsing/combining text elements.
Claims 7 and 17: describes predicting components/values and assembling commands from lists, i.e., abstract prediction and command construction from data.
Claims 8 and 18: only limits who uses it (healthcare provider/agent), which is a field-of-use limitation without technical improvement.
Claims 9 and 19: only limits who uses it (patient), which is a field-of-use limitation without technical improvement.
Claims 10 and 20: only places it on an IoT device, which is a generic “do it on a device” implementation limitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Pending US Application No. 18/752,715
US Patent No. 12,020,698
Claims 1 and 11:
A method comprising: providing a natural language interface to enable a user to access an electronic health record (EHR) system; receiving, via the natural language interface, one or more first input stimuli from the user, wherein the one or more first input stimuli include text, sound, and one or more activation of icons, and wherein the sound includes noise, redundancy, and verbosity;
converting the one or more first input stimuli into a plurality of different verbs, each of the verbs associated with a different action performable in the EHR system;
obtaining multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs, each of the multiple respective command parameters being specific to a patient;
receiving a selection of one of the multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs; receiving, via the natural language interface, one or more second input stimuli from the user, wherein the one or more second stimuli include second text, second sound, and one or more second activation of icons; displaying one or more patients having records in the EHR system based on the one or more second input stimuli; receiving a selection of one of the one or more patients; converting the plurality of different verbs, the selected multiple respective command parameters, and the selected patient into one or more commands; and
changing a navigational state of the EHR system based on the one or more commands.
Claims 1 and 11:
A method comprising: providing a natural language interface to enable a user to access an electronic health record (EHR) system; receiving, via the natural language interface, one or more first input stimuli from the user, wherein the one or more first input stimuli includes text, sound, and one or more activation of icons, and wherein the sound includes noise, redundancy, and verbosity, each of the noise, the redundancy, and the verbosity including respective data that is not useful for parsing an intended command; converting the one or more first input stimuli into a plurality of different verbs, each of the verbs associated with a different action performable in the EHR system, wherein the converting includes extracting the noise, the redundancy, and the verbosity from the sound of the input stimuli; displaying multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs, each of the multiple respective command parameters being specific to a patient;
receiving from the user a selection of one of the multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs; receiving, via the natural language interface, one or more second input stimuli from the user, wherein the one or more second stimuli includes second text, second sound, and one or more second activation of icons; displaying one or more patients having records in the EHR system based on the one or more second input stimuli; receiving from the user a selection of one of the one or more patients; converting the plurality of different verbs, the selected multiple respective command parameters, and the selected patient into one or more commands, the one or more commands including the intended command; and changing a navigational state of the EHR system based on the one or more commands.
Claims 2 and 12 correspond to
Claims 2 and 12
Claims 3 and 13 correspond to
Claims 3 and 13
Claims 4 and 14 correspond to
Claims 4 and 14
Claims 5 and 15 correspond to
Claims 5 and 15
Claims 6 and 16 correspond to
Claims 6 and 16
Claims 7 and 17 correspond to
Claims 7 and 17
Claims 8 and 18 correspond to
Claims 8 and 18
Claims 9 and 19 correspond to
Claims 9 and 19
Claims 20 and 20 correspond to
Claims 20 and 20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the Applicant can overcome the 101 Abstract Idea set forth.
For claims 1 and 11, Nenov et al. (WO 2009048984) in view of Fors et al. (US 2007/0083395):
Nenov teaches a voice controlled clinical information dashboard that allows a healthcare provider to access and navigate patient information using voice commands together with ordinary graphical interface inputs, such as keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, buttons, menus and lists. Nenov converts received speech into recognized text, converts the text into tokens, matches the tokens to executable dashboard functions, and uses those functions to open, close, minimize, maximize, or rearrange dashboard windows. Nenov also dynamically creates patient specific commands when a patient list is displayed, allowing the user to select a patient by saying the patient’s name, such as “select John Doe.” Nenov further teaches macro commands that perform the same function. (see [0033-0041] [0056] [0067-0090] [0102-0114])
Fors teaches a computerized clinical information system for accessing and navigating patient records. The system receives user input through devices such as a keyboard, microphone, mouse, touchscreen, and clickable icons; displays configurable patient lists based on criteria; allows a user to search the lists by patient name, visit, record number, physician or unit; and receives a selection of a patient. After a patient is selected, Fors displays a secondary menu containing patient-specific options, such as order review, and prior patient visits. Selecting one of these options causes the system to display the related patient information in a pop-up window, new screen, or other display, thereby changing the system’s navigational state. (see [0026] [0036-0054])
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nenov nor Fors explicitly teach receiving a selection of one of the multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs; converting the plurality of different verbs, the selected multiple respective command parameters, and the selected patient into one or more commands.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Nenov and Fors to include receiving a selection of one of the multiple respective command parameters for each of the different verbs; converting the plurality of different verbs, the selected multiple respective command parameters, and the selected patient into one or more commands.
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 SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights