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 .
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.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 30 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.
Claims 1 – 30 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.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 10), machine (claims 21 – 30), and manufacture (claims 11 – 20) which recite the abstract idea steps of
accessing an utterance, the utterance comprising one or more tokens,
wherein the one or more tokens correspond to one or more medical entities;
identifying a medication order intent from the utterance;
generating a labeled utterance, wherein generating the labeled utterance comprises:
associating the one or more tokens with a hierarchical entity type comprising a set of sub-entity types, wherein the hierarchical entity type is associated with a first medical coding system;
generating medication order information based on the one or more tokens and the set of sub-entity types; and
providing the medication order information to a health record.
These steps of claims 1 – 30, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processing language, accessing in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of providing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer language, identifying in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 30, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The claims are understood, as a whole, in light of the Specification. Here, the claim itself is directed towards providing a medication order. As explained in the Specification
[0037] For example, a healthcare provider (e.g., a doctor) may have a query (or utterance), "Show me Mary Alice's (a patient's name) recent visit, including her blood pressure." The processing pipeline may identify the intent of the end-user, and extract entities, such as the patient's name "Mary Alice" and "blood pressure." Based on the extracted medical entity (e.g., blood pressure) that is associated with medical entity type "vitals, the pipeline may identify the SNOMED CT coding system specialized in the medical entity type. A medical code in the SNOMED CT coding system may be found and linked to the medical entity (e.g., blood pressure). The FHIR-compliance data structure may be generated based on the above information, and used to obtain Mary Alice's record containing the measurement information (e.g., blood pressure) from an EHR system.
[0038] In some embodiments, an additional medication order pipeline may be used to facilitate medication orders by identifying the medication ordering intent from a natural language utterance, and using the FHIR-compliance data structure to generate medication order information to fulfill medication orders through an EHR system. The medication order information may be a concise search phrase containing the medical entities extracted from the data structure, or converted EHR system-specific medical codes based on the standard medical codes in the data structure.
The abstract idea is applied to technology to achieve all the benefits of applying the abstract idea to technology. The invention, as disclosed in the Specification, is not directed towards a technological improvement. The result of the invention is data that has a potential application and not a practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 10, 12 – 20, and 22 – 30, reciting particular aspects of how generating medication orders may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of cause the systems to perform amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of accessing an utterance amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of providing the medication order amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10, 12 – 20, and 22 – 30, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 30; accessing, generating, and providing, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional Elements
Computer – paragraph 182 – 187 and figure 12 #1200
Storage – paragraph 189
Software – paragraph 121
Machine learning model – paragraph 84 may be a machine learning (ML) model (e.g., bidirectional encoder representations from Transformers (BERT)) that is trained using unsupervised learning techniques. Paragraph 99 using a first machine learning model and a second machine learning model. For example, in FIG. 2, two machine learning models, medical NER model 250 and linking and resolution module 252, as part of the NLU pipeline 230, may be used
Natural language processing – paragraph 55 name entity recognition and natural language utterance paragraph 75
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10, 12 – 20, and 22 – 30, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, enabling the EHR, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sethi et al Patent No.: US 11,862,305 Analyzing patient health records and providing structured patient health records for treatment and research,
Huang et al Pub. No.: US 2019/0102380 mapping clinical terminology with natural language processing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626