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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on February 4, 2026, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-51 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for clinical decision support. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for clinical decision support. The claim recites the steps: the multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem being unique and tailored for the specific medical service provider organization, wherein general clinical service requests are addressed by appropriately non- specialized or non-localized remedies found in a lowest tier of the organizational processing subsystem, and wherein specialized clinical service requests may be addressed by remedies found in a highest tier of the organizational processing subsystem, and wherein each tier of the organizational processing subsystem has a dedicated workflow for clinical service requests, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation, executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, and generating training data based on the generated output…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “parsing the clinical service request… using statistical analyses” and “generating output, using a text generator model”, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model”; “transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation using the machine learning model”, “train or retrain the machine learning model using the generated training data”, “receiving a clinical service request from at least one of an electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system”, “the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data”, and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem.” The claim also recites that the steps of “receiving a clinical service request…; transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation, executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, generating training data based on the generated output…; and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…” are performed by a processor.
The additional elements “receiving a clinical service request from at least one of an electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system”, “the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data”, and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The additional elements “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model”; “transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation using the machine learning model”, “train or retrain the machine learning model using the generated training data” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional elements “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model”; “transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation using the machine learning model”, “train or retrain the machine learning model using the generated training data” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model”; “transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation using the machine learning model”, “train or retrain the machine learning model using the generated training data” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model”; “transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation using the machine learning model”, “train or retrain the machine learning model using the generated training data” limit the identified judicial exceptions “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens”, this type of limitations merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the steps of “receiving a clinical service request…; parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; and generating at least one decision support recommendation based on the at least one relevant clinical rule and the at least one primary workflow…; and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving a clinical service request…; the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data, and transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the function of gathering and transmitting data. In the limitations “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, generating training data based on the generated output…”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system, and a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem, the machine learning model, they are just merely used as general means for gathering and transmitting data.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “receiving a clinical service request from at least one of an electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system”, “the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data”, and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “receiving a clinical service request from at least one of an electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system”, “the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data”, and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “receiving a clinical service request…; transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation, executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, generating training data based on the generated output…; and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 2 and 27, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 2 directed to a method, independent claim 27 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 3-26 and 28-51, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 28, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein parsing the clinical service request into the plurality of semantic tokens is: performed using a classification model clinical knowledge, operational knowledge, and statistical analyses, is one such parsing among millions of other clinical service requests …, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. the claim recites the additional elements wherein the preliminary using a machine learning model, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “parsing the clinical service request” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 29, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein classifying the clinical service request is: performed using the classification model, clinical knowledge, operational knowledge, and statistical analyses to determine a message intent; and executed to incorporate the clinical service request and the plurality of semantic tokens into a custom input embedding model…, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 30, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the custom input embedding model acts as an intermediary transformer that generates organization-specific vectorized representations of data from disparate sources…, training data by inputting the scores into a reward model; retraining, via the processor, the text generator model, the custom input embedding model, and the classification model based on the training data, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the models functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating at least one natural language clinical decision support recommendation” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6-7 and 31-32, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the plurality of semantic tokens includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology…; wherein the plurality of semantic tokens includes at least one associated with a type, a severity, an urgency…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 33, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting reviewing, via the processor, the clinical content with a clinical rules engine to determine the at least one relevant clinical rule…, and searching, via the processor, a clinical workflow repository associated with the specific medical service provider organization…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claim recites the additional element the processor, is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9 and 34, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further wherein the preliminary triage operation includes: generating, via the processor, an intermediary recommendation based on the at least one relevant clinical rule, the at least one primary workflow…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claim recites the additional elements directing, via the processor, the organizational processing subsystem to prompt to interact with the intermediary recommendation; and receiving, via the processor, interaction data from the organizational processing subsystem, which are mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10 and 35, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the preliminary triage operation functions as a chatbot interface for performing interactive advising and clinical decision support., which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 11-12 and 36-37, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the preliminary triage operation includes generating, via the processor, a refined recommendation by performing an iterative conversational process, and wherein the iterative conversational process includes parsing, classifying, and identifying clinical content…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 13 and 38, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the iterative conversational process includes using the at least one intermediary workflow, the at least one rule adapter, the refined recommendation, and the interaction data from each iteration of the iterative conversational process as training data for the machine learning model, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “the iterative conversational process” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 14-15 and 39-40, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the preliminary triage operation includes generating, via the processor, an organization-specific summary by inputting data gathered during the iterative conversational process into a summarization model, and wherein the organization- specific summary is associated with the at least one decision support recommendation.…, wherein the summarization model is a large language model, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating an organization-specific summary” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 16 and 41, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the iterative conversational process includes using a plurality of subsidiary rule adapters to refine the at least one relevant clinical rule, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 17 and 42, the claims recite the additional elements wherein at least one machine learning model is used to implement the parsing, reviewing with the clinical rules engine, and searching of the clinical workflow repository to enable improved semantic tokenization, and workflow selection., which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “to implement the parsing, reviewing with the clinical rules engine, and searching of the clinical workflow repository” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 18 and 43, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the service identifier is included as criteria in the search to identify the at least one primary workflow, and wherein the service identifier denotes at least one of an appointment request, a medication refill request, referral questions…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 17. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 19-21 and 44-46, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein a plurality of organizational processing subsystems is arranged into a multi-tiered response hierarchy, wherein the multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem is unique and tailored for the specific medical service provider organization…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claim recites the additional elements a plurality of organizational processing subsystems and the multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem, which are recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 22-26 and 47-51, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the decision support recommendation is transferred directly into an individual’s mailbox…, a regional hub…, a processing pool…, wherein the clinical service request is received from at least one of an electronic health records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system, and a professional referral, wherein an operational dashboard is configured to track outputs associated with clinical service requests…, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “parse the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens that includes clinical metadata for clinical metadata ontology using a machine learning model, clinical knowledge, operational knowledge, and statistical analyses; execute a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classify and/or label the clinical service request, a classification and/or label configured to account for both a type of the clinical service request, and/or a varying severity and/or urgency of the clinical service request, and identify at least one relevant clinical rule and at least one primary workflow for responding to the clinical service request based on a classification and/or label, the at least one relevant clinical rule and the at least one primary workflow each being unique and tailored for a specific medical service provider organization; generate output, using a text generator model, comprising at least one decision support recommendation based on the vectorized representation, the at least one relevant clinical rule and the at least one primary workflow, wherein the at least one decision support recommendation includes recommendations for patient care that account for at least one of medication history, preexisting conditions, information gathered during a doctor visit, and medical data gathered from external sources” recited in the independent claims 1, 2, and 27.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-51 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to a mental process, method of organizing human activity, or simple mathematics, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite a system and method for clinical decision support. The Specification paras [0004-0005] described that the multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem being unique and tailored for the specific medical service provider organization, wherein general clinical service requests are addressed by appropriately non- specialized or non-localized remedies found in a lowest tier of the organizational processing subsystem, and wherein specialized clinical service requests may be addressed by remedies found in a highest tier of the organizational processing subsystem, and wherein each tier of the organizational processing subsystem has a dedicated workflow for clinical service requests, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Moreover, the claims recite the steps of: parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; transform the clinical service request into a vectorized representation, executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, and generating training data based on the generated output…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims also recite “parsing the clinical service request… using statistical analyses” and “generating output, using a text generator model”, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claims are integrated into a practical application, improves to the functioning of a computer, improve other technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the steps of “receiving a clinical service request…; parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; and generating at least one decision support recommendation based on the at least one relevant clinical rule and the at least one primary workflow…; and “transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving a clinical service request…; the vectorized representation being stored in a vector database that receives input via transformed data, and transferring the at least one decision support recommendation to a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem…”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the function of gathering and transmitting data. In the limitations “parsing the clinical service request into a plurality of semantic tokens…; executing a preliminary triage operation with the plurality of semantic tokens to: classifying and/or labeling the clinical service request…, identifying at least one relevant clinical rule and primary workflow…; generating output comprising decision support recommendation based on the relevant clinical rule and the primary workflow, generating training data based on the generated output…”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
These additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the electronic heath records system, a patient portal, a call center, a third-party system, and a multi-tiered organizational processing subsystem, the machine learning model, they are just merely used as general means for gathering and transmitting data. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer or machine learning model. As stated above, the claims do not effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access under different scenarios. (See Specification, paras [0060-0067]). Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea of information access using some unspecified, generic computer, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
According, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-51 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dasi et al. (2022/0392642) disclose a computer implemented method for prescribing optimized medical interventions includes retrieving a patient's updated electronic medical record (EMR) and mapping the diagnosis of the patient to a medical treatment database to select a plurality of likely medical intervention choices based on a score exceeding a defined threshold score.
Baronov et al. (US 2024/0186004) disclose a protocol condition object is selected from a graphical user interface displaying a plurality of different protocol condition objects.
Green, JR. et al. (US 2011/0301982) disclose an integrated medical software system with embedded transcription functionality.
Narayan et al. (US 2009/0177493) disclose a method and system for providing medical decision support.
Alsafadi (US 2007/0175980) discloses a clinical decision support system displays a patient treatment guideline for a given patient in response to a query from a medical practitioner along with an indicator as to what state in the patient treatment guideline the current patient is.
Krishnan et al. (US 2005/0234740) disclose business methods and systems that are provided use knowledge-based expert systems for mining (extracting) highly structured clinical information from various structured and unstructured sources of healthcare provider data.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 February 21, 2026