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 .
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 December 8, 2025, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 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;
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 a user and a digital assistant…”, “…, wherein the interaction interface comprises a plurality of interaction controls for interacting with the 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 via the interaction interface,…” 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, 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…”, “…, wherein the interaction interface comprises a plurality of interaction controls for interacting with the 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 an interaction control of the plurality of interaction controls, 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 via the interaction interface,…” 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 recites 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Lippok et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0319650).
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 a 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), wherein the interaction interface comprises a plurality of interaction controls for interacting with the digital assistant (See [0159], [0291]: Conceivable among other things are an exchange of voicemails, text messages, a checking of checkboxes and/or an interaction with symbolic control elements (e.g. a “like” icon, a “thumbs-up” icon or the like), which the Examiner is interpreting an interaction with symbolic control elements to encompass a plurality of interaction controls for interacting with the digital assistant as the query may be text-based, for example, by means of a dialog system or a chatbot, but also icon-based, by means of a selectable “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” element, as well as an assessment in the form of stars on a scale);
receiving, via an interaction control of the plurality of interaction controls, 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]));
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 via the interaction interface, 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.)
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 discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Lippok further teaches wherein determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement comprises:
determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement by determining at least one of the following:
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);
determining that an information type included in the file matches an information type requested from the user in the interaction context; and
determining that an appearance layout of the file meets a predetermined layout requirement.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 December 8, 2025, 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 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. 102 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) amended claim 1 recites a concrete technical method for information interaction in health consultation scenarios, which is tied to an improved technique for information interaction and generating health consultation results in a more convenient manner. This method integrates technical features into a practical application and cannot be performed by the human mind, fully complying with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Amended claim 1 focuses on solving a practical technical problem existing in traditional online health consultation. Claim 1, as a whole, especially as clarified, integrates into a practical application of information interaction and health consultation in a more convenient manner. For example, the amendments to Claim 1 clarify that, to enable convenient and health consultation information interaction between a user and a digital assistant, a sequential and interrelated workflow is defined. Specifically, in response to a consultation initiating operation initiated by a user, providing an interaction interface between a user and a digital assistant for health consultation, and this interface is equipped with a plurality of interaction controls designed for interacting with the digital assistant. Through one of these interaction controls, receiving a file input by the user, and the file is in a non-text message format that is applicable to health consultation scenarios. Subsequently, based on the interaction context formed between the user and the digital assistant within this health consultation interface, determining whether the file meets the health consultation requirement, ensuring the file is relevant to the user's specific consultation needs. If the file is confirmed to meet the requirement, extracting information included in the file. On this basis, generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant, and this prompt integrates the extracted file information and the interaction context to guide the model's analysis direction. After the prompt is input into the digital assistant's model via the interaction interface, determining an analysis result based on information included in the file, and this result is output to the user by the digital assistant. Consequently, the claims integrate these technical steps into a practical application of health consultation information interaction, achieving more efficient and user-centric effects compared to conventional methods;
(2) amended Claim 1, as a whole, integrates the recited technical logic into a practical application of health consultation, rather than merely reciting an abstract concept. Pursuant to the "October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility," a claim is not directed to a judicial exception if it "integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." The steps in amended claim 1 form a workflow tailored to health consultation. Each step is designed to support the goal of improving interaction efficiency, rather than existing in isolation as an abstract idea. Additionally, amended Claim 1, especially as further clarified, does not recite a mental process and cannot be performed by the human mind. The "October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" clarifies that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Multiple steps in amended claim 1 exceed the capabilities of the human mind or manual operation. For instance, "receiving a non-text format file via the interaction controls" requires the support of a digital interface and control systems, and the human mind cannot simulate the technical process of receiving and transmitting file data. "Determining whether the file meets health consultation requirements based on interaction context" involves analyzing dialog content and matching it with the file's information, which is a process that demands processing of data, and the human mind cannot complete efficiently or accurately. "Extracting information included in the file" and "generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant" require data extraction techniques and an understanding of the model's input specifications, neither of which can be achieved through mental effort alone. "Inputting the prompt into the model" and "determining the analysis result" rely on the computational power of the digital assistant, which is trained on medical model. The human mind cannot replicate this model's ability to process prompt information and generate professional health consultation results. In conclusion, amended Claim 1 is a practical technical solution that causes the model to be able to accurately analyze files and provide useful feedback. Besides, amended claim 1 can effectively avoid providing an analysis result of the health file in a case where the file does not meet the requirement, and thus improving interaction efficiency, to provide more intelligent feedback to guide the user. Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They recite technical methods implemented through specific computer components, integrate alleged abstract ideas into practical application with concrete technical elements, and provide meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested;
(3) Lippok explicitly states the diagnostic assessment station is intended for "a user (in particular a member of the medical staff such as a doctor)" to retrieve patient information or modify medical reports. Lippok only discloses a "diagnostic assessment station" (front-end) and a "computing unit" (back-end). There is no mention of a "digital assistant" configured for health consultation. Components in Lippok are designed for medical data management, not for health consultation with users. The diagnostic assessment station in Lippok has a user interface that hosts "a worklist for the user (healthcare staff)." This interface is designed for worklist management, not for interacting with a digital assistant, and Lippok lacks "a plurality of interaction controls for interacting with the digital assistant." Besides, Lippok further specifies that "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." Patient information (including unstructured formats like text diagnostic findings, audio/video recordings) is received from a "first information source," not "input by the user via an interaction control." Unstructured files (audio/video recordings) m Lippok are pre-stored patient consultation/examination data, not "non-text message format files input by the user via controls." Therefore, Lippok fails to disclose or suggest feature (1);
(4) feature (2) constitutes an integrated technical step that relies on three elements: (1) a "digital assistant" configured for health consultation; (2) an "interaction context" derived from the interaction between the user and the digital assistant; and (3) a judgment explicitly targeting "whether the file meets a health consultation requirement." From the above disclosure, Lippok never mentions a "digital assistant" for health consultation, nor an "interaction interface between a user and a digital assistant." As disclosed in Lippok, its system centers on a "diagnostic assessment station" and a "computing unit," and therefore lacks the "interaction context between the user and the digital assistant in the interaction interface." Besides, Lippok only judges if unstructured patient information can be "extracted and/or converted into structured file formats" to facilitate the processing of medical parameters. Notably, Lippok never judges if a file aligns with "health consultation requirements" as feature (2) requires. Therefore, Lippok fails to disclose or teach feature (2);
(5) regarding feature (3), feature (3) recites the following sequential steps: first, in response to determining the file meets the health consultation requirement, extracting information included in the file; then, generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant based on the extracted information and the interaction context; finally, in response to inputting the prompt into the model of the digital assistant via the interaction interface, determining an analysis result of the digital assistant which is output to the user for the file based on information included in the file. Lippok explicitly states that "patient information which is present in unstructured file formats is extracted and/or converted into structured file formats in order to allow a simple and reliable acquisition and processing of medical parameters." Notably, the trigger for extracting information in Lippok is "the presence of unstructured patient information," rather than the "determining the file meets health consultation requirements." Meanwhile, Lippok clarifies that "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." The extracted information in Lippok comes from "patient information from a first information source," not from a "file input by the user" as required by feature (3). Moreover, Lippok only mentions a "diagnostic assessment station" (front-end) and a "computing unit" (back-end) for processing medical parameters. There is no disclosure of a "digital assistant," let alone a "model of the digital assistant" or a "prompt input" in Lippok. The "user" in Lippok is explicitly defined as "a member of the medical staff such as a doctor," and interactions are limited to retrieving/modifying medical reports or viewing worklists via the diagnostic assessment station. There is no "interaction context between a user and a digital assistant" that feature (3) relies on. Moreover, the extracted information in Lippok is used to "process medical parameters," not to generate a prompt for a digital assistant model. Feature (3) is intended to enable generating a prompt input for the model of the digital assistant to support health consultation, while information extraction in Lippok aims to convert unstructured medical records into structured data for healthcare staff's diagnosis;
(6) since Lippok has no "digital assistant model" or "prompt," there is no step of inputting a prompt via an interface. Additionally, Lippok outputs "ascertained health information about the patient" to "member of the medical staff such as a doctor," not to the "user initiating health consultation" in feature (3). What is more, Lippok's health information is based on "medical parameters characterizing the patient's physical constitution," rather than "information included in the file" as required by feature (3). Therefore, Lippok fails to disclose or teach feature (3). In summary, Lippok and amended Claim 1 address distinct technical fields and solve different technical problems. Lippok aims to realize an automatic detection of a change in the physical constitution of a patient and fails to disclose or teach any of features (1) to (3) of amended Claim 1. In addition to the above, based on above features (1) to (3), the solution of amended Claim 1 may achieve advantageous technical improvements which cannot be achieved by the cited reference. For example, the solution of amended Claim 1 can improve interaction efficiency and enable the user to obtain authoritative and professional guidance at any time. Amended Claim 1 can also guide the user to upload correct pictures/files, and provide detailed medical report analysis, thereby improving the service quality of the digital doctor (See paragraphs [0035], [0039], [0054]). Through the above discussions, claim 1 as amended is patentable over the cited reference. Analogous amendments and arguments apply to independent claims 10 and 19, and thus independent Claims 10 and 19 are patentable. All the dependent claims are patentable for analogous reasons. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) and (a)(2) be withdrawn.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s newly amended claims recite an improvement as the Examiner maintains that the claimed limitations are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)) which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The Examiner maintains that the 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 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) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the 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. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s claimed limitations encompass managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The recited step of “receiving a non-text format file via the interaction controls” amounts to a user interacting with a generic computer. The recited step of “determining whether the file meets health consultation requirements based on interaction context” amounts to a user following instructions to make a determination about information, a person interacting with a generic computer component, while following rules or instructions, would be able to make a determination on if data meets a requirement or not. The Examiner maintains that a person, interacting with a generic computer component, while following rules or instructions, could make a determination on a file’s health consultation requirements and interaction context. The Examiner maintains that a person, interacting with a generic computer component, while following rules or instructions, can accomplish “extracting information included in the file” and “generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant” as a person can follow instructions to open a file and extract information from a file, and a person can follow instructions to determine a prompt for a model. The interaction with the medical model is recited at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment, and also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that Applicant’s claimed limitations have been rejected as an abstract idea that is encompassed as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, not Mental Processes. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s newly amended claims recite an improvement as the Examiner maintains that the claimed limitations are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)) which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Lippok’s disclosure of a “chatbot” ([0291]) encompasses the “digital assistant” as the Applicant’s Specification in Paragraph [0054] recites “In some embodiments, as previously described, the digital assistant 125 determines a reply based on the model.”, the Examiner maintains that the “digital assistant” is encompassed by the Lippok’s disclosure of a “chatbot” as the two accomplish the task of replying to a user’s input. Lippok teaches “a plurality of interaction controls” in Paragraph [0159]: “Conceivable among other things are an exchange of voicemails, text messages, a checking of checkboxes and/or an interaction with symbolic control elements (e.g. a “like” icon, a “thumbs-up” icon or the like).” The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches “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” in Paragraphs [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. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches (1) a "digital assistant" configured for health consultation; (2) an "interaction context" derived from the interaction between the user and the digital assistant; and (3) a judgment explicitly targeting "whether the file meets a health consultation requirement." The Examiner’s response to the “digital assistant” argument is above in response to argument (3). The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches “an ‘interaction context’ derived from the interaction between the user and the digital assistant” in Paragraphs [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]). The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches “health consultation requirements” in Paragraphs [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. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (5), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches “in response to determining that the file meets the health consultation requirement, extracting information included in the file” in Paragraphs [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. Lippok teaches a “generating a prompt input for a model of the digital assistant based on the extracted information and the interaction context” in Paragraphs [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. The Examiner maintains that Lippok’s teaching of the user being “a member of the medical staff such as a doctor,” does not teach away from encompassing the Applicant’s described “user” as the Applicant’s claim language and Specification requires the “user” to be a person, and does not specify that the “user” cannot be “a member of the medical staff such as a doctor,” who may be consulting a “digital assistant” for health assessments. The Examiner maintains that the claimed limitation of “determining, in response to inputting the prompt into the model of the digital assistant via the interaction interface, an analysis result of the digital assistant which is output to the user for the interaction interface, for the target file based on information included in the file” are taught by Lippok in Paragraphs [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, and Paragraph [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. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (6), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Lippok’s teaching of the user being “a member of the medical staff such as a doctor,” does not teach away from encompassing the Applicant’s described “user” as the Applicant’s claim language and Specification requires the “user” to be a person, and does not specify that the “user” cannot be “a member of the medical staff such as a doctor,” who may be consulting a “digital assistant” for health assessments. The Examiner maintains that Lippok teaches “information included in the file” as required by feature (3) as Paragraph [0258] describes “It is conceivable in particular that a part of the plurality of patient information PI, such as e.g. clinical findings and/or a description of symptoms of the patient, is present in an unstructured file format”. The Examiner maintains that the newly amended claims are taught by Lippok as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s), and that Applicant’s independent claim 1 does not solve different technical problems or is in a different technical field as Lippok. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s claimed limitations of outputting rules or instructions for the user to follow is not encompassed by Lippok in Paragraphs [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. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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