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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 12/9/2025 in which claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing search results and recommendation to a user without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 10.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, by at least one processor, a search query from a user via the app, wherein the search query requests information about a medical disease or condition; in response to the query, determining a plurality of medical information topics associated with the medical disease or condition; generating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of cards comprising a card for each of the plurality of medical information topics to be displayed to the user in the app; displaying, by the at least one processor, a first card to the user in the app; receiving, by the at least one processor, a first user input in the app via a user interface indicating a desire to expand the first card; displaying additional medical information relevant to the one of the plurality of different topics associated with the corresponding section by expanding the first card in response to receiving the user input, receiving, by the at least one processor, a swipe user input in the app via the user interface indicating a desire to view a second card of the plurality of cards; displaying, by the at least one processor, a second card to the user in the app; generating, by the at least one processor, a recommended next action via a large language model (LLM) associated with a topic selected by the user; and displaying, by the at least one processor, the recommended next action in the app. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of providing search results and recommendation to a user. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a processor, an app, a card, a user interface, and a large language model do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, an app, a card, a user interface, and a large language model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a processor, an app, a card, a user interface, and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a processor, an app, a card, a user interface, and a large language model are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, an app, a card, a user interface, and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claim 10 and hence the claim 10 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 10 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. 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. Therefore, the claims 2-8 and 11-18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, US Patent Application No. 2021/0151158 in view of Dickens, US Patent Application No. 2021/0043294 in view of Gadit et al., US Patent No. 12,361,089.
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a computer-implemented method for providing search results to a user in an app, the method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a search query from a user via the app, wherein the search query requests information about a medical disease or condition ([0021-[0022], Fig. 2);
in response to the query, determining a plurality of medical information topics associated with the medical disease or condition ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2);
generating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of cards comprising a card for each of the plurality of medical information topics to be displayed to the user in the app ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5);
displaying, by the at least one processor, a first card to the user in the app ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 4-5);
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first user input in the app via a user interface indicating a desire to expand the first card ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 4-10);
displaying additional medical information relevant to the one of the plurality of different topics associated with the corresponding section by expanding the first card in response to receiving the user input ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 4-10),
receiving, by the at least processor, a swipe user input in the app via the user interface indicating a desire to view a second card of the plurality of cards ([0021]-[0032], Fig. 6-7);
displaying, by the at least one processor, a second card to the user in the app ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5);
generating, by the at least one processor, a recommended next action via a large language model (LLM) associated with a topic selected by the user ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 5, Action steps; dietary suggestions; suggests comparable medication alternatives); and
displaying, by the at least one processor, the recommended next action in the app ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 5, dietary suggestions; suggests comparable medication alternatives).
Powell does not specifically disclose
a swipe.
However, Dickens discloses
a swipe ([0135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Powell to include the above-noted disclosure of Dickens. The motivation for combining these references would have been to perform required interaction with the app.
Powell and Dickens do not specifically disclose
a large language model (LLM).
However, Gadit discloses
a large language model (LLM) (col. 4, lines 21-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Powell and Dickens to include the above-noted disclosure of Gadit. The motivation for combining these references would have been to perform required interaction with the app.
Regarding claim 2, Powell discloses wherein the plurality of topics comprises nutrition ([0021], nutrition labels).
Regarding claim 3, Powell discloses wherein the plurality of sections can be expanded within the app to display additional information regarding the corresponding topic ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 4, Powell discloses displaying, by the at least one processor, a summary of the result for the query ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Powell discloses wherein the summary comprises at least one of an overview section, a symptoms section, and a common causes section ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Powell discloses
providing, by the one or more processor, one or more filters selected by the user ([0017], [0032]); and
in response to receiving a selected filter from the one or more filters ([0017], [0032]):
generating, by the at least one processor, a result for the query based on the selected filter, and displaying, by the at least one processor, the result in the app ([0021]-[0023], Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Powell discloses wherein the one or more filters comprise at least one of demographics or symptoms ([0017, [0032]).
Claims 10-16 are substantially similar to claims 1-7 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, US Patent Application No. 2021/0151158 in view of Dickens, US Patent Application No. 2021/0043294 in view of Gadit et al., US Patent No. 12,361,089 in view of Whalen et al., US Patent No. 11,302,434.
Regarding claim 8, Whalen discloses wherein the result is generated via a generative machine learning model (col. 1, lines 57-59, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Powell, Dickens, and Gadit to include the above-noted disclosure of Whalen. The motivation for combining these references would have been to perform required interaction with the app.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 9, Gadit discloses wherein the generative machine learning model comprises a large language model (col. 4, lines 21-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Powell, Dickens, and Whalen to include the above-noted disclosure of Gadit. The motivation for combining these references would have been to perform required interaction with the app.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 9 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are expressly directed to a technical solution to a technical problem (delivering medical information to a user in a logical and relevant manner and providing credibility and a transparent discourse), as well as specifically generating medical recommendations via large language models.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that providing medical information to a user and generating recommendation is not a technical improvement. It may be an improvement to an abstract idea as providing information is abstract in nature. The claim makes use of a large language model which is recited at a high level of generality and it amounts to merely applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement to the model as a result of implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant states that these additional elements amount to a specific method of interaction with a user interface by a user that achieves a logical, relevant, and specifically tailored delivery of medical information to users in a more effective and credible manner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that these interactions provide user with the medical information that they searched for using an app. Obtaining and providing the relevant medical information and displaying when the user is using an app is nothing more than collecting, analyzing and displaying data which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that the claims as a whole recite an inventive concept that include additional elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claimed invention does not present an inventive concept as the limitations are abstract in nature and the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to add significantly more and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684