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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16-17, and 19-22 are currently pending. Claims 8 and 18 are canceled and Claims 21-22 are newly added in the Claims filed on April 24, 2026 corresponding to the Request for Continued Examination filed on May 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4 and 6-7, 9-10, and 21 are drawn to a method for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-14, 16-17, 19, and 22 are drawn to a device for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A method of information interaction, comprising:
in response to detecting, by an electronic device, a digital assistant being activated, determining at least one question provided by the digital assistant to a user based on an information collection requirement of an electronic medical record, wherein the information collection requirement is pre-set according to information to be collected for the electronic medical record;
in response to receiving, via interaction interface between the digital assistant and the user, interaction information during an interaction between the user and the digital assistant, generating the electronic medical record for a consultation object based at least on the interaction information, at least part of information in the electronic medical record being determined from the interaction information, and at least one entity word in the electronic medical record being annotated with a respective entry link for accessing an entry page corresponding to an entity word, the entry page presenting an explanation of the entity word, and for an entity word in the at least one entity word, the entity word being determined based on a number of times that the entity word is triggered by a plurality of users; and
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a completeness of the electronic medical record satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, presenting the electronic medical record to medical personnel to determine a subsequent operation for the electronic medical record, wherein the predetermined completeness condition is associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of determining a question provided, receiving interaction information, generating a medical record based on the interaction information, detecting a level of completeness satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, and presenting the medical record to medical personnel when the predetermined completeness condition is associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information recite observations, evaluations, and/or collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the electronic device and interaction interface) used as a tool to perform the mental process, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of determining a question provided, receiving interaction information, generating a medical record based on the interaction information, detecting a level of completeness satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, and presenting the medical record to medical personnel when the predetermined completeness condition is associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information recite following rules or instructions for patient recordkeeping and/or filtering data), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 11 and 20 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 11, and 20 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 11 recites a device comprising a memory and a processing unit that performs the method and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that implements the method when executed by a processor.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 12 recite presenting the medical record to medical personnel based on the determination that the completeness satisfies a predetermined completeness condition, Claims 3 and 13 recite receiving a confirmation of the medical record from medical personnel and storing the confirmed medical record, Claims 4 and 14 recite providing the confirmed medical record to the user, Claims 6 and 16 recite presenting an interface enabling editing of the medical record, Claims 7 and 17 recite enabling the viewing and selecting of messages between the user and the assistant and updating the medical record to incorporate the selected messages, Claims 9 and 19 recite providing access to the medical record and/or the interaction information between the user and the assistant, Claim 10 recites that the assistant generates a reply for the user based on a model, and Claims 21-22 recite initiating a further interaction between the assistant and the user in response to receiving a return of the medical record and generating a modified medical record based on the interaction, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Hence Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract ideas.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the fact that the medical record is electronic, the fact that the assistant is a digital assistant, the electronic device, and the interaction interface) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the electronic device and the interaction interface, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0038] and [0040] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of an electronic medical record and a digital assistant, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of electronic medical recordkeeping, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the presenting of the medical record recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the interfaces presented in dependent Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17, and the providing of the links recited in dependent Claims 9 and 19), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g. the storing of the confirmed record recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, in this case, the fact that the medical record is electronic, the fact that the assistant is a digital assistant, the electronic device, and the interaction interface), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0038] and [0040] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the electronic device and the interaction interface) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of electronic medical record data; and/or
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing electronic medical record data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the electronic medical record data from storage in order to present it to medical personnel.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the presenting of the medical record recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the interfaces presented in dependent Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17, and the providing of the links recited in dependent Claims 9 and 19), and/or electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing of the confirmed record recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13, and the generating of the modified medical record recite in dependent Claims 21-22), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Mohammed (US 2021/0050089) teaches an interactive system including a plurality of questions for patients to answer that are evaluated for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness to determine whether or not to prompt the patient for additional data. Additionally, Mohammed teaches receiving and storing patient responses to the questions and calculating a timeliness/accuracy/completeness (TAC) score for the patient data. However, Mohammed does not teach identifying entity words in the medical record based on a number of times that the entity word is triggered by a plurality of users, wherein the entity words include a link for accessing an entry page providing an explanation of the entity word.
Cronin (US 2020/0260955) teaches a virtual assistant that displays a questionnaire to a patient for the patient to input answers to, wherein the patient answers are stored in an answers database, and wherein the patient answers are used to diagnose the patient and determine a subsequent course of action. Additionally, Cronin teaches that the system automatically determines subsequent questions to present to the patient by the virtual assistant in response to detecting answers that exceed a threshold. However, Cronin does not teach identifying entity words in the medical record based on a number of times that the entity word is triggered by a plurality of users, wherein the entity words include a link for accessing an entry page providing an explanation of the entity word.
Christner (US 2016/0357908) teaches a user interface including a medical record with words such as “affirm” or “deny” that lead a user to a web page associated with the word via a link. However, Christner does not teach that the link word is determined based on a number of times that the entity word is triggered by a plurality of users and further does not teach any type of virtual or digital assistant, and/or any type of questionnaire or interaction beyond the user selecting the word to access the web page.
Oliner (US 2021/0209145) teaches enabling a user to search for terminology and returning documents relevant to the search, wherein the returned documents may include annotations identifying keywords, wherein the returned documents may be based on search statistics. However, Oline does not teach identifying entity words in the medical record based on a number of times that the entity word is triggered by a plurality of users, wherein the entity words include a link for accessing an entry page providing an explanation of the entity word.
Pham (US 2021/0081475) teaches receiving user interactions including a user manually highlighting/selecting a word or phrase, and providing a website for the word or phrase, wherein the website is determined to be relevant to the word or phrase based on a number of users having selected the website. However, although Pham teaches basing the website on the number of users selecting the website, Pham does not teach the identification of the word or phrase itself based on the number of times the word or phrase has previously been selected by a plurality of users.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the claimed invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements of the present invention are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 is not considered to be disclosed by and/or obvious in view of the disclosures/teachings of the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see Remarks filed April 24, 2026, with respect to the interpretation of Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered, and in combination with the amendments, are persuasive. Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19 now recites a “processor,” which is interpreted as a hardware element, e.g. see [0007] and [0100] of the as-filed Specification, that is sufficient structure to perform the functional limitations of the claim. Hence Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it does not recite an abstract idea, specifically because it recites technical operations performed by an electronic device and digital assistant, e.g. see pgs. 9-10 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that an invention is not patent eligible merely because it implements an abstract idea on a physical machine (i.e. an electronic device), e.g. see MPEP 2106(I). Additionally, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the interaction between the electronic device and the digital assistant may be interpreted as merely a computer (i.e. the electronic device) executing a software program module (i.e. the digital assistant) to perform various functions, rather than any type of complex and/or distributed computing mechanism. Furthermore, as shown above, aggregating data, applying statistical criteria to data, and presenting the results of the application of the statistical criteria cover, as stated above, collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is an example of a mental process, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application, specifically because it recites specific improvements in electronic medical record generation, e.g. see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention achieved the improvement of generating a more comprehensible medical record, this represents an improvement to the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activities, and an improvement to an abstract idea itself is not a technological improvement, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Moreover, improving the process of generating a medical record is not a technological problem arising the realm of computer networks because the problem of presenting relevant data to a user in a report has existed since long before the advent of any type of computer technology.
Furthermore, as stated above, the additional elements (i.e. the electronic device and the interaction interface, the fact that the assistant is a digital assistant, and the fact that the medical record is electronic) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (i.e. the electronic device and the interaction interface), and/or merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. electronic medical recordkeeping).
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities including electronic recordkeeping, and/or storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and, in combination with the Claim amendments, are persuasive for the reasons disclosed above. Hence, the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn for the reasons disclosed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Strongwater (US 2015/0046190) – teaches a system for processing medical data that enables users to highlight and flag terms, and further includes hyperlinks for quick access to information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights