DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202311167462.8, filed on September 11, 2023.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on April 27, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, 19-20 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s):
in response to a consultation initiating operation initiated by a user, providing for health consultation from the user;
determining, based on an interaction context between the user, whether the file meets a health consultation requirement, wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises:
parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and
determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement;
in response to determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement, extracting information included in the file;
generating a prompt input based on the extracted information and the interaction context;
determining, an analysis result which is output to the user for the file based on information included in the file
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the generic computer components of “…providing an interaction interface between the user and a digital assistant…”, “…and the digital assistant in the interaction interface…”, “…for a model of the digital assistant…”, “…in response to inputting the prompt into the model of the digital assistant,…” the claim recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to provide health consultation from the user, a user following instructions to determine whether the file meets a health consultation requirement by analyzing the file, and determining if the data meets requirements, a user following instructions to extract information included in the file, a user following instructions to determine a prompt input based on the extracted information and the interaction context, and a user following instructions for determining an analysis result for the file based on information included in the file. These steps could be accomplished by a user following rules or instructions.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the abstract idea to a technical environment.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recites the following generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea: “…providing an interaction interface between a user and a digital assistant…”, “…and the digital assistant in the interaction interface…”. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “receiving, via the interaction interface, a file input by the user, the file being in a non-text message format” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than storing and retrieving information in memory. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “…for a model of the digital assistant…”, “…in response to inputting the prompt into the model of the digital assistant…” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claims 2-3 further describe determining that the file meets or does not meet the health consultation requirement. Similarly, claim 4 describes extracting information from the file and determining the analysis result for the file. Similarly, claim 5 describes providing a parsed version corresponding to the file. Similarly, claims 6-7 describes the parsed version and detecting an interaction triggering option. Similarly, claim 8 further defines the interacting operation. Finally, claim 9 further defines the file. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations
consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claim 5 recites additional limitations that amount to generic computer components).
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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 19 recite the same functions as claim 1, but in electronic device form and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium form.
Claims 11-18 recite the same functions as dependent claims 2-9.
Claim 20 recites the same functions as dependent claim 2.
The addition of the limitation of “at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform operations comprising:” in claim 10 amounts to generic
computer components.
The addition of the limitation of “when executed by a processor,” in claim 19 amounts to a generic computer component.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippok et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0319650) in view of Stern (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0342966).
As per independent claim 1, Lippok discloses a computer-implemented method for information interaction, comprising:
in response to a consultation initiating operation initiated by a user, providing an interaction interface between the user and a digital assistant for health consultation from the user (See [0028]-[0029], [0291]: The diagnostic assessment station may include a user interface, which the Examiner is interpreting a user interface to encompass an interaction interface, and a chatbot to encompass a digital assistant for health consultation from the user);
receiving, via the interaction interface, a file input by the user, the file being in a non-text message format (See [0034]-[0035], [0098]-[0101], [0120]-[0123]: The receiving of the plurality of patient information may comprise at least a receiving of first patient information and second patient information from a first information source, which the Examiner is interpreting the plurality of patient information to encompass a file input as the first information source and the second information source are selected from: a hospital information system, a radiological information system, a picture archiving and communication system, a laboratory information system, a pathology information system, a smart device of the patient, a diagnostic medical device, a patient registration, a patient health record, a recorded patient consultation, diagnostic findings, an input acquired by means of a user interface);
determining, based on an interaction context between the user and the digital assistant in the interaction interface, whether the file meets a health consultation requirement (See [0066]-[0067], [0136], [0159], [0291]: Reference patients may in particular be such comparison patients whose similarity measure referred to the patient information data exceeds a predetermined or predefined or predefinable threshold, which the Examiner is interpreting the threshold to encompass a health consultation requirement ([0136]: The new piece of patient information can come from a consultation with the patient) as the input by the user with the assessment of the priority level of the health information about the patient may in this case comprise any forms of communication such as an interaction with symbolic control elements ([0159])), wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises:
parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and
determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement;
in response to determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement, extracting information included in the file (See [0117]-[0123]: The plurality of patient information (PI), wherein a part of the plurality of patient information (PI) is present in an unstructured file format and wherein the processing of the plurality of patient information (PI) comprises extracting the part of the plurality of patient information (PI) into a structured file format by means of the computing unit (SYS.CU), wherein the part of the plurality of patient information (PI) is extracted as a function of a computational linguistics method, which the Examiner is interpreting extracting the part of the plurality of patient information (PI) into a structured file format to encompass extracting information included in the file, and interpreting processing of the plurality of patient information (PI) to encompass in response to determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement as the Applicant’s Specification in Paragraph [0045] describes “the health consultation requirement” as “In some embodiments, when determining whether the target file meets the health consultation requirement, it may be determined whether the target file includes medical related information, for example, it may be determined whether a file name of the target file, metadata of the target file, or information parsed from the target file corresponds to the medical related information.”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “health consultation requirement” is information that is related to medical or health information);
generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant based on the extracted information and the interaction context (See [0216], [0264], [0291]: The plurality of patient information PI is processed by means of the first functions F1, the first function F1 may in particular include an algorithm and/or a model which is configured to process, correlate and reformat one or more medical parameters of the plurality of patient information PI, and a query may be text-based, for example, by means of a dialog system or a chatbot, which the Examiner interpreting the first function to encompass a prompt input, and the patient information to encompass the extracted information and the interaction context); and
determining, in response to inputting the prompt into the model of the digital assistant, an analysis result of the digital assistant which is output to the user for the interaction interface (See [0276]-[0283]: A (statistical) connection may be derived between the parameter configuration of the patient and a likelihood of a medical condition and/or a critical change in the state of health of the patient, which the Examiner is interpreting a likelihood of a medical condition and/or a critical change in the state of health of the patient to encompass an analysis result, and interpreting the priority level to encompass the output), for the file based on information included in the file (See [0097]: The inventive method can realize an automatic detection of a change in the physical constitution of a patient, and as a result, possible medical conditions of the patient may advantageously be detected already at a preliminary stage or at an early stage and appropriate measures for monitoring and/or preventive treatment initiated, which the Examiner is interpreting possible medical conditions of the patient to encompass an analysis result.)
While Lippok describes the method for determining, based on an interaction context between the user and the digital assistant in the interaction interface, whether the file meets a health consultation requirement, Lippok may not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises:
parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and
determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement;
Stern teaches a method for determining, based on an interaction context between the user and the digital assistant in the interaction interface, whether the file meets a health consultation requirement, wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises:
parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file (See [0088]-[0089], [0170]-[0171], [0210] [0396]: The one or more client network devices include plural software applications for displaying an electronic medical information template, collecting digital information from the electronic medical information templates, encrypting the collected digital information, for compressing and packaging the encrypted digital information and for securely transmitting the encrypted, compressed and packaged digital information, which the Examiner is interpreting the digital image/data verification application to encompass determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file, and the medical template reader application can determine patient encounter information from the original digital images ([0210])); and
determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context (See [0153]-[0157], [0236]: The paper medical information template is designed such that the plural processing applications may read and/or interpret data from a digital image made of a paper copy of a medical information template, or directly from electronic medical information templates created for an electronic device, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical codes that are a collection of the most common and most likely to encountered for a specific type of general or specialized medical practice to encompass the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context, and interpreting the information of the specific electronic template can include referrals or consults ([0236]), which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the health consultation when combined with Lippok as Stern requires specific templates and codes to match a patient to a potential consultation) and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement (See [0206]-[0207]: The real-time verification application allows errors and/or inconsistencies in electronic interpretation of the data on the digital images from the scanned paper templates or original electronic data entered into an electronic template to be immediately corrected by a human user, if the digital image is missing necessary, important, required or relevant data (e.g., provider signature, vital signs, patient demographics, etc.) this information may be returned to the provider so that the provider appropriately completes this data and the paper template is rescanned, which the Examiner is interpreting the required or relevant data to encompass a predetermined layout requirement as the Applicant’s Specification [0047] describes the “appearance layout” as “…an appearance layout of the target file meets a predetermined layout requirement. This is particularly suitable for the case where the target file is generated in a shooting or scanning manner, and due to the angle for shooting or scanning, the file may not include complete information of the medical report, the file may have distortion and deformation, or the display of content is unclear due to dark shadow; and thus the target file may not meet the requirement on the appearance layout of the target file. In order to ensure that subsequent analysis is accurate, it is desirable for the user to modify or provide a more accurate target file.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Lippok to include determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises: parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement as taught by Stern. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lippok with Stern with the motivation of reduce the complexity of collecting patient encounter information and allow easy automated collection, processing and recording of medical information codes (See Background of the Invention of Stern in [0032]).
Claim(s) 10 mirrors claim 1 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
The addition of “at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform operations comprising:” is encompassed by Lippok in Paragraphs [0222]-[0223].
Claim(s) 19 mirrors claim 1 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
The addition of “when executed by a processor,” is encompassed by Lippok in Paragraphs [0222]-[0223].
As per claim 2, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement further comprises:
determining that the file includes medical related information (See [0132]: Patient information includes a predetermined selection of terms and/or keywords which can be recognized by means of statistical and/or logical models and assigned to a medical parameter, which the Examiner is interpreting a predetermined selection of terms and/or keywords to encompass determining that the file includes medical related information.)
Claim(s) 11 and 20 mirror claim 2 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and are rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
As per claim 3, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches further comprising: in response to determining that the file does not meet the health consultation requirement, providing prompt information to prompt the user to input a correct file (See [0165], [0272]: Feedback of the user in respect of the validity of the health information about the patient may for example comprise an evaluation, an assessment, a correction and/or arbitrary feedback on the health information about the patient, which the Examiner is interpreting an evaluation to encompass determining that the file does not meet the health consultation requirement, and the user may be able to correct an incorrect assessment and/or an inaccuracy of at least a part of the ascertained health information about the patient to encompass providing prompt information to prompt the user to input a correct file.)
Claim(s) 12 mirrors claim 3 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
As per claim 4, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein determining the analysis result of the digital assistant for the file based on information extracted from the file comprises:
extracting the information from the file based on a parsing technique corresponding to a format of the file (See [0269]-[0270]: A part of the plurality of patient information PI is present in an unstructured file format, the processing of the plurality of patient information PI comprising extracting the part of the plurality of patient information PI into a structured file format by means of the computing unit SYS.CU, wherein the extracting of the part of the plurality of patient information PI is performed as a function of a computational linguistics method, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion); and
determining the analysis result for the file based on the extracted information and the interaction context between the user and the digital assistant (See [0270]-[0271]: The processing of the plurality of patient information comprises checking for the presence of at least one new piece of patient information and/or an appointment, the ascertaining of the health information about the patient and/or the providing of the health information about the patient being carried out as a function of the presence of the at least one new piece of patient information and/or of the appointment, which the Examiner is interpreting the ascertaining of the health information about the patient and/or the providing of the health information about the patient being carried out as a function of the presence of the at least one new piece of patient information and/or of the appointment to encompass the claimed portion.)
Claim(s) 13 mirrors claim 4 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
As per claim 5, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches further comprising: providing a parsed version corresponding to the file in the interaction interface, the parsed version comprising the information extracted from the file (See [0269]-0270], [0291]: The ascertained health information about the patient and the invitation to the user to make the assessment of the priority level of the health information about the patient are output in the form of a visual output, such as e.g. a graphical representation and/or a text-based description, but also an acoustic output, such as e.g. an alert tone and/or a voicemail, which the Examiner is interpreting the ascertained health information to encompass a parsed version.)
Claim(s) 14 mirrors claim 5 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 5.
As per claim 6, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claims 1 and 5 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein the parsed version corresponding to the file comprises a structured representation of the information extracted from the file (See [0269]-0270], [0291]: The ascertained health information about the patient and the invitation to the user to make the assessment of the priority level of the health information about the patient are output in the form of a visual output, such as e.g. a graphical representation and/or a text-based description, but also an acoustic output, such as e.g. an alert tone and/or a voicemail, which the Examiner is interpreting the extracting the part of the plurality of patient information PI into a structured file format by means of the computing unit SYS.CU to encompass the claimed portion.)
Claim(s) 15 mirrors claim 6 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
As per claim 7, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claims 1 and 5 as described above. Lippok further teaches further comprising: in response to detecting an interaction triggering operation on the parsed version corresponding to the file (See [0271]-[0273]: The health information about the patient is ascertained by means of a computing unit SYS.CU as a function of the plurality of patient information PI and a first function F1 and a check is conducted, based on the ascertained health information about the patient, to determine whether a trigger condition is fulfilled, which the Examiner is interpreting the trigger condition to encompass an interaction triggering operation on the parsed version corresponding to the file), providing at least one interaction option for the parsed version, each interaction option corresponding to an interacting operation for the parsed version (See [0283]-[0284]: A trigger condition is fulfilled because an atypical or unusual configuration of medical parameters has been identified in relation to the patient, which the Examiner is interpreting the identification to encompass an interaction option); and
in response to receiving a selection for a target interaction option in the at least one interaction option, performing a target interacting operation corresponding to the target interaction option on the parsed version (See [0284]-[0286]: The ascertained health information about the patient may be stored in the memory unit and the patient noted with a low priority in the worklist of the user, which the Examiner is interpreting the store in the memory unit to encompass performing a target interacting operation.)
Claim(s) 16 mirrors claim 7 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 7.
As per claim 8, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claims 1, 5, and 7 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein at least one interacting operation corresponding to the at least one interaction option comprises at least one of: a copying operation, an exporting to local operation (See [0284]-[0286]: The ascertained health information about the patient may be stored in the memory unit and the patient noted with a low priority in the worklist of the user, which the Examiner is interpreting the store in the memory unit to encompass an exporting to local operation.), a sharing operation, a printing operation, and a deleting operation.
Claim(s) 17 mirrors claim 8 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
As per claim 9, Lippok/Stern discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein the file comprises a file uploaded or captured in real time by the user (See [0102]-[0104]: The smart device of the patient may include for example a sensor for measuring medical parameters of the patient, which the Examiner is interpreting measuring medical parameters of the patient to encompass a file captured in real time by the user.)
Claim(s) 18 mirrors claim 9 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 9.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on April 27, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) the operation of "parsing the file to determine ... an appearance layout of the file" requires computationally analyzing the visual and structural characteristics of a non-text message format file: such as evaluating borders, graphical clarity, content regions, and spatial arrangement of elements within a document image or scanned report This is a computer-vision and document structure-analysis operation that is fundamentally incapable of being performed in the human mind. A person cannot mentally parse the pixel-level layout of a photographic or scanned document, identify its structural regions, and computationally compare the identified layout against a predetermined layout requirement. The Federal Circuit has recognized that claims involving operations that require computational analysis of visual or structural data are not abstract. In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the court held that claims directed to a specific configuration of sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from those sensors to determine position were not abstract. Similarly, in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court found that claims requiring a specific method of analyzing code to produce a security profile were not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed steps went "beyond the abstract idea of' classifying' data." The present claims likewise recite specific computational steps, such as parsing a non-text file to extract its information type and to evaluate its appearance layout, which go beyond any abstract idea of merely "managing interactions." Furthermore, the amended claims recite a test requiring both (i) that the information type in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context, and (ii) that the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement. This dual verification mechanism is not "following rules or instructions" in the abstract; it is a specific, computationally-implemented validation pipeline that requires machine analysis of file content and structure; (2) amended claim l defines a complete, ordered technical workflow for information interaction in the context of health consultation with a digital assistant: (1) providing an interaction interface between a user and a digital assistant for health consultation; (2) receiving a file in a non text message format via the interaction interface; (3) parsing the file to determine its information type and appearance layout; (4) applying a verification against the interaction context and a predetermined layout requirement; (5) upon satisfaction, extracting information from the file; (6) generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant based on the extracted information and the interaction context; and (7) inputting the prompt into the model to determine and output an analysis result. This workflow addresses a specific technical problem identified in the specification: most model-based digital assistants do not support processing information in a non-text message format, and users may upload non-medical health-related pictures/files, or photos that are not standardized, which may cause the model not being able to accurately identify the photos and provide useful feedback. (See paragraph [0026]). The claimed solution provides the technical effect of effectively avoiding providing an analysis result of the health file in a case where the file does not meet the requirement, and thus avoiding inaccurate feedback results, misleading, and affecting reliability of health consultation and user friendliness. (See paragraph [0027]). The Federal Circuit in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018), held that claims directed to an improved user interface that solved a specific technological problem were not abstract. Similarly, the present claims improve the interaction between a user and a digital assistant by implementing a specific file validation pipeline including appearance layout analysis before information extraction and prompt generation. This does not merely apply an abstract idea on a generic computer; it is a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem in the field of digital assistant-based health consultation;
(2) even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, the claims recite elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of parsing a non-text format file to determine both information type and appearance layout, verifying the information type against a real-time interaction context, verifying the appearance layout against a predetermined requirement, and then conditionally extracting information and generating a prompt input for a digital assistant model, represents an unconventional ordered combination of steps that is not routine or conventional in the art. The Office Action has not provided any evidence that this specific combination of steps was wellunderstood, routine, or conventional. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn;
(3) Applicant respectfully submits that Lippok does not disclose or suggest at least the above recited features, for the following reasons. First, the Office Action cites Lippok at paragraphs [0066]-[0067], [0136], [0159], and [0291] for the feature "determining, based on an interaction context between the user and the digital assistant in the interaction interface, whether the file meets a health consultation requirement." See Office Action at pages 9-10. The Office Action interprets a similarity-measure threshold for identifying reference patients as encompassing the claimed "health consultation requirement." However, amended claim 1 now expressly requires "determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context." Lippok's similarity-measure threshold ([0066]-[0067]) operates on patient information data to identify reference patients whose medical parameters are similar to a given patient. This is a patient-to-patient comparison mechanism, not a mechanism that verifies whether a user submitted file's information type matches a type requested during an ongoing user-assistant dialogue. Lippok' s system receives patient information from various infonnation sources such as hospital information systems, radiological information systems, and patient health records ([0034]-[0035], [0098]-[0l 01 ]). The Office Action's reliance on Lippok's [0136] (checking for the presence of new patient information) likewise does not teach this feature. Lippok's trigger signal is based on the mere existence of new patient information, not on a comparison between the file's information
type and a type requested from the user in the interaction context. These are fundamentally different operations. Additionally, amended claim 1 further requires “parsing the file to determine…an appearance layout of the file” and “determining that…the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement.” Lippok does not disclose or suggest any such operation. Lippok's processing of patient information involves extracting unstructured patient information into a structured file format by means of computational linguistics methods ([0 117]-[0123 ], [ 0269]-[0270 ]). This is a natural-language-processing operation that converts text-based data into structured parameters. It is not an analysis of the visual appearance layout of a non-text format file to determine whether the file's appearance layout satisfies a predetermined layout requirement. The Office Action does not identify any passage in Lippok that teaches parsing a file to determine its appearance layout or comparing such layout against a predetermined layout requirement. Indeed, Lippok' s system is designed to process medical data that has already been received from institutional information sources;
(4) amended claim 1 requires "determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file
matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement." (Emphasis added.) This means the health consultation requirement is met only when both the information-type match and the layout verification are satisfied simultaneously. Even if Lippok were found to disclose elements arguably related to one of these conditions (which Applicant does not concede), Lippok does not disclose, teach, or suggest a test requiring both information-type matching against the interaction context and appearance-layout verification against a predetermined requirement. The technical effect of this determination is to prevent the digital assistant from processing files that are either irrelevant to the consultation topic or that are of insufficient visual quality for accurate analysis. (See paragraphs [0047] and [0048]). For at least these reasons, Lippok fails to disclose or suggest at least the above distinguishing feature recited in amended claim 1, and thus the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn;
(5) independent claim 10 is an electronic device claim that recites features corresponding to those of method claim l. Claim 10 has been amended to include the same distinguishing features, i.e., "parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file" and conjunctive determination features discussed above with respect to amended claim 1. For the same reasons set forth above in Section B.1, Lippok also fails to disclose or suggest the corresponding distinguishing feature recited in amended claim 10, and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn. Independent claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that recites features corresponding to those of method claim 1. Claim 19 has been amended to include the same features discussed above. For the same reasons set forth above in Section B. 1, Lippok also fails to disclose or suggest the corresponding distinguishing feature recited in amended claim 19, and the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn. Claims 2-9 depend from amended claim 1, claims 11-18 depend from amended claim 10, and claim 20 depends from amended claim 19. Each of these dependent claims incorporates all limitations of its respective independent claim and recites additional features. For at least the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the dependent claims are likewise not anticipated by Lippok. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) pervasive. The Examiner maintains that the step of “parsing” could be accomplished by a person following instructions to use a computer as a tool as the “parsing” step, given its broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to determining the contents of a file. The Examiner does not acknowledge the similarity of the Applicant’s newly amended claims to Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as the courts indicated that “vii. Particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors, Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), and the Applicant’s claimed limitations do not recite a particular configuration of specialized computer components or a particular method of using the raw data as the “parsing” step is used to identify if any file meets any health consultation requirement. The Examiner does not acknowledge the similarity of the Applicant’s newly amended claims to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as the courts indicated “ix. A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” show an improvement in computer-functionality (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)), and the Applicant’s claims do not identify an improvement in computer-functionality or any other technology or technical field. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claimed limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Applicant’s recitation of the “dual verification mechanism” is recited at a high level of generality that does not indicate the computer components or methods that would execute the step of “parsing” or “determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement…”. The additional elements of “a digital assistant” and “an interaction interface” amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to the example of managing personal behavior “iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)). The Examiner does not acknowledge the similarity to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. as the Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims do not recite an improvement in computer functionality or any other technology or technical field. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to “ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). The Examiner maintains that the interaction between the user and digital assistant are recited at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) pervasive. The Examiner maintains that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the abstract idea to a technical environment. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner has supplemented Lippok with Stern (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0342966) to address the newly amended claimed portions of “parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement” as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner has supplemented Lippok with Stern (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0342966) to address the newly amended claimed portions of “parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement” as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (5), the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner has supplemented Lippok with Stern (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0342966) to address the newly amended claimed portions of “parsing the file to determine an information type and an appearance layout of the file; and determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement in response to determining that the information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context and the appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement” as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pulitzer et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0157475), describes a server that initiates a telemedicine session for the authenticated testing package responsive to receipt of the first code for the authenticated testing package.
Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0022688), describes a digital health application selects a plurality of questions based on the initial complaint, an order of presenting each of the plurality of questions, the order associated with the plurality of questions.
Goker et al. (“A Personalized System for Conversational Recommendations”), describes a novel user model that influences both item search and the questions asked during a conversation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights