DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the application filed 04 October 2024.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and considered below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In line 23 claim 1 recites the limitation “the interface”. It is unclear to which of the plurality interfaces of line 5 the limitation refers back.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy.
Further, in line 2 of claim 2, the limitation “the databases” lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation will be interpreted as ‘the database[[s]]’.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 1 the limitations
That is, other than reciting “computer-enabled process”, “automatically” and an “artificial intelligence component” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being methods for organizing human activity. For example, a person may transcribe recorded clinical discussion of a plurality of participants into text in real time (e.g. a person may transcribe a clinical discussion between a group of doctors); identify clinical data elements from the text in real time (e.g. the person may identify specific words or phrases); while the participants are discussing the clinical data elements, instructing to access a database that includes reference data elements (e.g. the person, during the discussion, may be instructed to search a certain database); identifying relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements; producing a context-related data element from the relational intersection between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements (e.g. the person may search the database for the identified words and phrases and determine associated data); and soliciting from the plurality of participants a decision regarding the context-related data element, wherein at least one of the participants responds with the decision regarding the context-related data element (e.g. the person may ask the doctors if the associated data is valid and receive a response from at least one of the doctors).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “computer-enabled process”, “automatically” and an “artificial intelligence component” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claim also recites the additional elements “providing an interface for each of the plurality of participants, wherein each of the plurality of interfaces includes an input device that is configured to record a clinical discussion of the corresponding participant”, “recording the clinical discussion of the plurality of participants with the input devices on the plurality of interfaces”, “displaying the transcribed text on the interface in real time” and “automatically displaying the context-related data element on a display screen within the interface in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the interfaces are provided, the discussion is recorded or the transcribed text and context-related data element are displayed. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claim recites the additional limitations of “computer-enabled process”, “automatically” and an “artificial intelligence component”. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [004], [037] and [063]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements “providing an interface for each of the plurality of participants, wherein each of the plurality of interfaces includes an input device that is configured to record a clinical discussion of the corresponding participant”, “recording the clinical discussion of the plurality of participants with the input devices on the plurality of interfaces”, “displaying the transcribed text on the interface in real time” and “automatically displaying the context-related data element on a display screen within the interface in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the interfaces are provided, the discussion is recorded or the transcribed text and context-related data element are displayed. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations represent the extra-solution activity of recording a conversation using a plurality of interfaces and displaying data which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
the step of automatically updating the databases with the decision regarding the context-related data element;
wherein the decision regarding the context-related data element is an approval, disapproval, deferment, or modification of the context-related data element;
wherein the step of automatically identifying relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements further comprises automatically identifying a digital twin for the patient within the database;
displaying information about the digital twin on the plurality of interfaces.
wherein the step of automatically transcribing the recorded clinical discussion further comprises automatically transcribing the recorded clinical discussion into at least one language other than English;
wherein the medical condition is selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Moreover, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
In claim 8 the limitations
That is, other than reciting an “artificial intelligence enabled advanced treatment management system”, an “artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of databases accessible by the artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of computer interfaces for use by participants in a clinical meeting” and “automatically” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being methods for organizing human activity. For example, a person may transcribe recorded clinical discussion of a plurality of participants into text in real time (e.g. a person may transcribe a clinical discussion between a group of doctors); identify clinical data elements from the text in real time (e.g. the person may identify specific words or phrases); while the participants are discussing the clinical data elements, instructing to access a database that includes reference data elements (e.g. the person, during the discussion, may be instructed to search a certain database); identifying relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements; producing a context-related data element from the relational intersection between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements (e.g. the person may search the database for the identified words and phrases and determine associated data); and soliciting from the plurality of participants a decision regarding the context-related data element, wherein at least one of the participants responds with the decision regarding the context-related data element (e.g. the person may ask the doctors if the associated data is valid and receive a response from at least one of the doctors).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – an “artificial intelligence enabled advanced treatment management system” an “artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of databases accessible by the artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of computer interfaces for use by participants in a clinical meeting” and “automatically” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claim also recites the additional elements “providing each participant with a corresponding one of the plurality of computer interfaces”, “recording the clinical discussion of the participants with one or more microphones connected to the plurality of computer interfaces”, “displaying the transcribed text on a display screen within the plurality of computer interfaces in real time”, “automatically displaying the context-related data element on the display screens of the plurality of interfaces in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion” and “updating the artificial intelligence component during the clinical meeting by indicating the decision regarding the context-related data element”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the interfaces are provided, the discussion is recorded, the transcribed text and context-related data element are displayed or the AI component is updated. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claim recites the additional limitations of an “artificial intelligence enabled advanced treatment management system” an “artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of databases accessible by the artificial intelligence component”, a “plurality of computer interfaces for use by participants in a clinical meeting” and “automatically”. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [004], [037] and [063]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements “providing each participant with a corresponding one of the plurality of computer interfaces”, “recording the clinical discussion of the participants with one or more microphones connected to the plurality of computer interfaces”, “displaying the transcribed text on a display screen within the plurality of computer interfaces in real time”, “automatically displaying the context-related data element on the display screens of the plurality of interfaces in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion” and “updating the artificial intelligence component during the clinical meeting by indicating the decision regarding the context-related data element”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the interfaces are provided, the discussion is recorded, the transcribed text and context-related data element are displayed or the AI component is updated. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations represent the extra-solution activity of recording a conversation, displaying data and updating (e.g. training) an AI model component which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
wherein the advanced treatment management system is for the treatment of a medical condition selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain,
wherein the decision regarding the context-related data element is an approval, disapproval, deferment, or modification of the context-related data element.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Moreover, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
In claim 11 the limitations reference data elements, and
That is, other than reciting an “advanced treatment management system for use by a multidisciplinary team of participants in a clinical meeting”, a “software application”, an “interface, wherein the interface comprises: an input device configured to record discussion of the participants; an output device; and wherein the interface is configured to access the software application”, a “database, wherein the database includes reference data elements”, and an “artificial intelligence component connected to the database and to the interface” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being methods for organizing human activity. For example, a person may determine clinical data elements from the recorded discussion of the participants (e.g. the person may identify specific words or phrases from a discussion), generate context-related data elements based on determined relationships between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements (e.g. the person may search a database of reference data for the identified words and phrases and determine associated data).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – an “advanced treatment management system for use by a multidisciplinary team of participants in a clinical meeting”, a “software application”, an “interface, wherein the interface comprises: an input device configured to record discussion of the participants; an output device; and wherein the interface is configured to access the software application”, a “database, wherein the database includes reference data elements”, and an “artificial intelligence component connected to the database and to the interface” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claim also recites the additional elements “display the context-related data elements on the output device”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the context-related data is displayed i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claim recites the additional limitations of an “advanced treatment management system for use by a multidisciplinary team of participants in a clinical meeting”, a “software application”, an “interface, wherein the interface comprises: an input device configured to record discussion of the participants; an output device; and wherein the interface is configured to access the software application”, a “database, wherein the database includes reference data elements”, and an “artificial intelligence component connected to the database and to the interface”. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [004], [037] and [063]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements “display the context-related data elements on the output device”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the context-related data is displayed i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. These limitations represent the extra-solution activity of displaying data which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim recites:
wherein the advanced treatment management system is for the treatment of a medical condition selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Moreover, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025)- “Machine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology. Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okerlund et al. (US 2023/0273945) in view of Barnes et al. (US 2017/0076046).
Claim 11:
Okerlund discloses a system for use by a team of participants in a meeting (Abstract), the system comprising:
a software application (“during a deposition proceeding, each participant to the deposition proceeding may have access to a local computing device 810 (user interface 109) that includes instructions stored in short-term memory 804 or long-term memory 805 to cause a software application to execute on processor 803”, [0132]);
an interface, wherein the interface comprises: an input device configured to record discussion of the participants; an output device; and wherein the interface is configured to access the software application (“Local computing device 810 is a device located close to a legal proceeding such as a deposition, and may comprise a desktop, laptop, smartphone, or tablet computing device. Local computing device 810 may serve as a user interface 209”, [0127], see also “local computing device(s) 810 may be coupled to one or more microphone(s) 105, which may be either included in the respective local computing device(s) 810, or communicatively coupled to the respective local computing device(s). The software application may receive one or more digital representations of recorded audio data as one or more audio segments”, [0133]);
a database, wherein the database includes reference data elements (“a database storing electronic documents”, [0003]); and
an artificial intelligence component connected to the database and to the interface, wherein the artificial intelligence component is configured to determine clinical data elements (search terms) from the recorded discussion of the participants, generate context-related data elements (search results) based on determined relationships between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements, and display the context-related data elements on the output device (“receiving an output signal from one or more microphones, the output signal representing content from a proceeding having two or more participants and generating a real-time transcript based on the received output signal. The method may further include displaying the real-time transcript via a user interface and selecting search terms from the real-time transcript. The method may further include conducting a search of a database storing electronic documents related to the proceeding based on the selected search terms and displaying the search results via the user interface”, [0003], see “PubMed” [0136] which contains a trove of clinical data such as clinical trial results, [0219] for artificial intelligence (AI)).
Okerlund does not explicitly disclose that the meeting is a clinical meeting between a multidisciplinary team of participants for advanced treatment management.
In an analogous art similarly processing information from a meeting, Barnes discloses that the meeting is a clinical meeting between a multidisciplinary team of participants for advanced treatment management (“provide interfaces, utilities and tools to permit users, e.g., medical personnel, to retrieve and visualize the data and information in the database 35. A workflow tool 52 can enable users to prepare, present and document or archive patient information associated with a multi-disciplinary board meeting… provide system aggregated patient information, clinical trial query results specific to the patient and the capturing of multi-disciplinary board meeting recommendations”, [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of applying Okerlund’s system to a clinical meeting between a multidisciplinary team of participants for advanced treatment management because Okerlund’s system is configured to “apply to any event during which one or more speakers engage in speech which is captured in any manner for transcription by any means known in the art or hereinafter developed. Such speech events or “depositions” extend, for example, to testimony in a court room, a political speech, any form of oral communication, such as a discussion, colloquy, argument or debate, or any other form of discourse or conversation, whether or not all participants are in the same location” (Okerlund, [0051]).
Claim 12:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the advanced treatment management system of claim 11, wherein the advanced treatment management system is for the treatment of a medical condition selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain (Barnes, [0077]).
Claim 1:
Okerlund discloses a computer-enabled process for conducting a meeting with a plurality of participants (Abstract), the process comprising the steps of:
providing an interface for each of the plurality of participants, wherein each of the plurality of interfaces includes an input device that is configured to record a discussion of the corresponding participant; recording the discussion of the plurality of participants with the input devices on the plurality of interfaces; (“during a deposition proceeding, each participant to the deposition proceeding may have access to a local computing device 810 (user interface 109)”, [0132], see also “local computing device(s) 810 may be coupled to one or more microphone(s) 105, which may be either included in the respective local computing device(s) 810, or communicatively coupled to the respective local computing device(s). The software application may receive one or more digital representations of recorded audio data as one or more audio segments”, [0133]);
automatically transcribing the recorded discussion into text in real time; displaying the transcribed text on the interface in real time (“receiving an output signal from one or more microphones, the output signal representing content from a proceeding having two or more participants and generating a real-time transcript based on the received output signal. The method may further include displaying the real-time transcript via a user interface”, [0003]);
automatically identifying clinical data elements (search terms) from the text with an artificial intelligence component in real time; while the participants are discussing the clinical data elements, automatically instructing the artificial intelligence component to access a database that includes reference data elements (a database storing electronic documents); automatically identifying with the artificial intelligence component relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements (conducting a search of a database storing electronic documents related to the proceeding based on the selected search terms); automatically producing a context-related data element (search results) from the relational intersection between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements; automatically displaying the context-related data element on a display screen within the interface in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion (“selecting search terms from the real-time transcript. The method may further include conducting a search of a database storing electronic documents related to the proceeding based on the selected search terms and displaying the search results via the user interface”, [0003], see “PubMed” [0136] which contains a trove of clinical data such as clinical trial results, [0219] for artificial intelligence (AI), see also “the search results or select portions of the search results are communicated from the remote system 2008 to the local system 2010. In this way, documents highly relevant to the deposition proceeding may be provided to the attorney and/or attorneys conducting the deposition in real-time”, [0147]); and
soliciting from the plurality of participants a decision regarding the context-related data element, wherein at least one of the participants responds with the decision regarding the context-related data element (“the eDiscovery system performs a search of documents related to the proceeding and identifies names … the ALPA prompts the user in real-time for clarification regarding which ‘Joe is being referred to. In some embodiments, the prompt may include a list of all possible Joes identified during the initialization stage. An example is provided in FIG. 14 in which the name detected by the name recognition module is ‘Joe’, but four possible candidates are identified, including ‘Joseph Simmons’, ‘Joe Vetter’, ‘Joey Bear’, and ‘Joseph McCarthy’. The user may follow up with clarifying questions, or may simply select the proper individual from the list provided”, [0188], see also [0147] where search results are provided to multiple users).
Okerlund does not explicitly disclose that the meeting is a clinical discussion during a clinical meeting with a plurality of participants discussing a patient undergoing treatment for a medical condition.
In an analogous art similarly processing information from a meeting, Barnes discloses that the meeting is a clinical discussion during a clinical meeting with a plurality of participants discussing a patient undergoing treatment for a medical condition (“provide interfaces, utilities and tools to permit users, e.g., medical personnel, to retrieve and visualize the data and information in the database 35. A workflow tool 52 can enable users to prepare, present and document or archive patient information associated with a multi-disciplinary board meeting… provide system aggregated patient information, clinical trial query results specific to the patient and the capturing of multi-disciplinary board meeting recommendations”, [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of applying Okerlund’s system to a clinical discussion during a clinical meeting with a plurality of participants discussing a patient undergoing treatment for a medical condition because Okerlund’s system is configured to “apply to any event during which one or more speakers engage in speech which is captured in any manner for transcription by any means known in the art or hereinafter developed. Such speech events or “depositions” extend, for example, to testimony in a court room, a political speech, any form of oral communication, such as a discussion, colloquy, argument or debate, or any other form of discourse or conversation, whether or not all participants are in the same location” (Okerlund, [0051]).
Claim 4:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the step of automatically identifying relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements further comprises automatically identifying a digital twin for the patient within the database (Barnes, “clinical attributes that provide search results of similar populations of patients with matching clinical attributes to easily visualize previous treatments/outcomes for similar patients and the ability to search for “populations” of similar patients that may be eligible for clinical trials or other research purposes”, [0076]).
Claim 5:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the process of claim 4, further comprising the step of displaying information about the digital twin on the plurality of interfaces (Barnes, [0076]).
Claim 7:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the medical condition is selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain (Barnes, [0077]).
Claims 2-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okerlund et al. (US 2023/0273945) in view of Barnes et al. (US 2017/0076046) and BMS et al. (US 2021/0390144).
Claim 2:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the process of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose automatically updating the database with the decision regarding the context-related data element.
In an analogous art similarly producing context-related data element (responses) related to a meeting (conference meeting) by searching a database (response database), BMS discloses automatically updating the database with a decision (identified as valid or appropriate under the circumstances) regarding the context-related data element (“building an AI-bot query response database 224, which effectively stores AI-bot responses that have been previously provided by the AI/ML engine 140 and have been identified as valid or appropriate under the circumstances (e.g., based on a positive response from a participant, an SME, and/or based on administrative user inputs)”, [0070], see also “The interactions between the AI/ML engine 140 and the participants of the conference meeting as well as the interactions between the AWL engine 140 and the SMEs 114 may be determined by the query engine 228, which updates the AI-bot query response database 224”, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of automatically updating Okerlund’s database with the decision regarding the context-related data element in order to improve the system’s future responses based on participant feedback regarding validity of current responses (see BMS, [0069]).
Claim 3:
Okerlund in view of Barnes and BMS discloses the process of claim 2, wherein the decision regarding the context-related data element is an approval, disapproval, deferment, or modification of the context-related data element (BMS, [0069]-[0070]).
Claim 8:
Okerlund discloses a process for developing an artificial intelligence enabled system that includes an artificial intelligence component, a plurality of databases accessible by the artificial intelligence component, and a plurality of computer interfaces for use by participants in a meeting (Abstract, [0057] and [0133], see also [0219] for artificial intelligence (AI)), the process comprising the steps of:
providing each participant with a corresponding one of the plurality of computer interfaces; recording the clinical discussion of the participants with one or more microphones connected to the plurality of computer interfaces (“during a deposition proceeding, each participant to the deposition proceeding may have access to a local computing device 810 (user interface 109)”, [0132], see also “local computing device(s) 810 may be coupled to one or more microphone(s) 105, which may be either included in the respective local computing device(s) 810, or communicatively coupled to the respective local computing device(s). The software application may receive one or more digital representations of recorded audio data as one or more audio segments”, [0133]);
automatically transcribing the recorded clinical discussion into text in real time; displaying the transcribed text on a display screen within the plurality of computer interfaces in real time (“receiving an output signal from one or more microphones, the output signal representing content from a proceeding having two or more participants and generating a real-time transcript based on the received output signal. The method may further include displaying the real-time transcript via a user interface”, [0003]);
automatically identifying clinical data elements (search terms) from the text with the artificial intelligence component in real time; while the participants are discussing the clinical data elements, automatically instructing the artificial intelligence component to access a database (a database storing electronic documents) that includes reference data elements; automatically identifying with the artificial intelligence component relational intersections between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements (conducting a search of a database storing electronic documents related to the proceeding based on the selected search terms); automatically producing a context-related data element from the relational intersection between the clinical data elements and the reference data elements; automatically displaying the context-related data element on the display screens of the plurality of interfaces in real time during the corresponding clinical discussion (“selecting search terms from the real-time transcript. The method may further include conducting a search of a database storing electronic documents related to the proceeding based on the selected search terms and displaying the search results via the user interface”, [0003], see “PubMed” [0136] which contains a trove of clinical data such as clinical trial results, [0219] for artificial intelligence (AI), see also “the search results or select portions of the search results are communicated from the remote system 2008 to the local system 2010. In this way, documents highly relevant to the deposition proceeding may be provided to the attorney and/or attorneys conducting the deposition in real-time”, [0147]); and
soliciting from the participants a decision regarding the context-related data element, wherein at least one of the participants responds with the decision regarding the context-related data element (“the eDiscovery system performs a search of documents related to the proceeding and identifies names … the ALPA prompts the user in real-time for clarification regarding which ‘Joe is being referred to. In some embodiments, the prompt may include a list of all possible Joes identified during the initialization stage. An example is provided in FIG. 14 in which the name detected by the name recognition module is ‘Joe’, but four possible candidates are identified, including ‘Joseph Simmons’, ‘Joe Vetter’, ‘Joey Bear’, and ‘Joseph McCarthy’. The user may follow up with clarifying questions, or may simply select the proper individual from the list provided”, [0188], see also [0147] where search results are provided to multiple users).
Okerlund does not explicitly disclose that the system is advanced treatment management system that the meeting is a clinical meeting.
In an analogous system similarly processing information from a meeting, Barnes discloses that the system is advanced treatment management system that the meeting is a clinical meeting (“provide interfaces, utilities and tools to permit users, e.g., medical personnel, to retrieve and visualize the data and information in the database 35. A workflow tool 52 can enable users to prepare, present and document or archive patient information associated with a multi-disciplinary board meeting… provide system aggregated patient information, clinical trial query results specific to the patient and the capturing of multi-disciplinary board meeting recommendations”, [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of applying Okerlund’s system as an advanced treatment management system used in a clinical meeting because Okerlund’s system is configured to “apply to any event during which one or more speakers engage in speech which is captured in any manner for transcription by any means known in the art or hereinafter developed. Such speech events or “depositions” extend, for example, to testimony in a court room, a political speech, any form of oral communication, such as a discussion, colloquy, argument or debate, or any other form of discourse or conversation, whether or not all participants are in the same location” (Okerlund, [0051]).
Okerlund in view of Barnes does not explicitly disclose updating the artificial intelligence component during the clinical meeting by indicating the decision regarding the context-related data element.
In an analogous art similarly producing context-related data element (response) related to a meeting (conference meeting) using an artificial intelligence component (AI/ML engine ), BMS discloses updating the artificial intelligence component during the meeting by indicating a decision (confirming or denying that a particular selection or suggested response) regarding the context-related data element (“The AI/ML engine 140 may also be configured to learn from further interactions (e.g., query/response instances, candidate SME selections, etc.) based on feedback, which may be provided in an automated fashion (e.g., via a recursive learning neural network) and/or a human-provided fashion (e.g., by a participant of the conference meeting and/or an SME confirming or denying that a particular selection or suggested response prepared by the AI/ML engine 140 was appropriate for a particular query received from a participant)”, [0069], see also “Responses within the AI-bot query response database 224 may constantly be updated, revised, edited, or deleted by the learning/training module 214 as the AI/ML engine 140 engages in more interactions with participants of a conference meeting and/or in interactions with queries and responses to queries”, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of updating Okerlund’s artificial intelligence component during the clinical meeting by indicating the decision regarding the context-related data element in order to improve the system’s future responses based on participant feedback regarding validity of current responses (see BMS, [0069]).
Claim 9:
Okerlund in view of Barnes and BMS discloses the process of claim 8, wherein the advanced treatment management system is for the treatment of a medical condition selected from the group consisting of cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, limb damage, brain damage or disease, organ damage, organ disease, a chronic inflammatory disease, a chronic immune disease, an infection, a genetic disease, a mental disorder, a diabetic disease, and chronic pain (Barnes, [0077]).
Claim 10:
Okerlund in view of Barnes and BMS discloses the process of claim 8, wherein the decision regarding the context-related data element is an approval, disapproval, deferment, or modification of the context-related data element (BMS, [0069]-[0070]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okerlund et al. (US 2023/0273945) in view of Barnes et al. (US 2017/0076046) and Georgiopoulos et al. (US 2004/0064322).
Claim 6:
Okerlund in view of Barnes discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the step of automatically transcribing the recorded clinical discussion further comprises automatically transcribing the recorded clinical discussion into at least one language other than English.
In an analogous art similarly automatically transcribing discussion in from a meeting, Georgiopoulos discloses wherein the step of automatically transcribing the discussion further comprises automatically transcribing the discussion into at least one language other than English (“transcribing spoken messages in English to produce English text and then translating the English transcription into French before sending the textual message to a participating client whose preferred language is known to be French”, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of automatically transcribing Okerlund’s recorded clinical discussion into at least one language other than English in order to present communication in a user’s “preferred language” (see Georgiopoulos, [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dahlmeier et al. (US 2014/0330558) discloses a system for providing action items from audio within an enterprise context. In some implementations, actions include determining a context of audio that is to be processed, providing training data to a speech recognition component, the training data being provided based on the context, receiving text from the speech recognition component, processing the text to identify one or more action items by identifying one or more concepts within the text and matching the one or more concepts to respective transitions in an automaton, and providing the one or more action items for display to one or more users
Strader et al. (US 2019/0122766) discloses a method for automatically generating a note summarizing a conversation between a patient and a healthcare provider is disclosed. A workstation is provided with a tool for rendering an audio recording of the conversation and a display for displaying a transcript of the audio recording obtained from a speech-to-text engine. The display of the workstation includes first transcript region for display of the transcript and a second note region for simultaneous displaying of elements of a note summarizing the conversation. Words or phrases in the transcript related to medical topics relating to the patient are extracted with the aid of a trained machine learning model. The extracted words or phrases are highlighted in the transcript and displayed in the note region. Links or a mapping between the extracted words or phrases in the note region and the portions of the transcript from which the extracted words or phrases originated are provided whereby the source and accuracy of the extracted words or phrases in the note region can be verified by a user.
Owen et al. (US 2020/0395109) discloses a system for obtaining encounter information during a patient encounter; processing the encounter information to detect the execution of a physical event during the patient encounter, thus defining a detected physical event; and deriving information for the detected physical event.
Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817) discloses a system for generating meeting insights based on media data and device input data. For example, in one or more embodiments, the disclosed system utilizes analyzes media data including audio data or video data and inputs to client devices associated with a meeting to determine a portion of the meeting (e.g., a portion of the media data) that is relevant for a user. In response to determining a relevant portion of the meeting, the system generates an electronic message including content related to the relevant portion of the meeting. The system then provides the electronic message to a client device of the user. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the system generates a meeting summary, meeting highlights, or action items related to the media data to provide to the client device of the user. In one or more embodiments, the system also uses the summary, highlights, or action items to train a machine-learning model for use with future meetings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights