DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 1 April 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “retraining the one or more artificial intelligence models using the medical report and the user feedback as training data, resulting in an updated version of the one or more artificial intelligence models.” The models find antecedent basis in the earlier limitation “generating structured data associated with the textual entities using one or more artificial intelligence models.” Applicants remarks do not appear to identify support for the specific amendments or the amendments at large. [0182] appears to be the most relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure.
[0182] FIG. 20B shows a flow diagram of an example computer-implemented method 2000B for generating a medical report using an intelligent medical reporting tool, according to an embodiment. In accordance with method 2000B, at 2020, method 2000B comprises identifying, by a system comprising at least one processor (e.g., system 300 and other described herein), a textual entities in a medical report associated with a patient in association with receiving user input entering at least some of the textual entities into the report via a graphical user interface. At 2022, method 2000B comprises determining, by the system, edit recommendations related to one or more of the textual entities, where the edit recommendations are generated by an artificial intelligence model, and wherein the edit recommendation relate to possible errors or improvements based on information comprising medical history data of the patient, one or more clinical guidelines applicable to the report, and one or more medical ontologies. At 2024, method 2000B comprises providing, by the system, feedback information regarding the edit recommendations via the graphical user interface. At 2026, method 2000B comprises receiving, by the system, user feedback regarding selections related to the edit recommendations. At 2028, method 2000B comprises retraining the artificial intelligence model using the report and the user feedback as a training data, resulting in an updated version of the artificial intelligence model.
The preceding describes retraining “the artificial intelligence model using the report and the user feedback.” However, the artificial intelligence model that is disclosed as being retrained is one that generates “edit recommendations … wherein the edit recommendation relate to possible errors or improvements.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the model disclosed in [0182] that generates edit recommendations to be different from the model that generates structured data associated with the textual entities. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this disclosure as suggesting or supporting the retraining of an AI model that generates structured data associated with the textual entities. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 13 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “generating, by the system, structured data associated with the textual entities using one or more artificial intelligence models, wherein the structured data comprises standardized entities corresponding to the textual entities, one or more assertions associated with the standardized entities, relationships among the standardized entities, and mappings of the standardized entities to standardized medical concepts defined in one or more medical ontologies.” Applicants remarks do not appear to identify support for the specific amendments or the amendments at large. [0110] appears to be the most relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure.
Assertion recognition at 906 involves analyzing (e.g., using one or more LLMs) a subset of text that has a recognized entity type classification to determine and assert additional information about the context of the recognized entity. For instance, in an example as applied to recognition of a term corresponding to TUMOR, based on analyzing additional text associated with the entity, the one or more NLU models 320 and/or clinical language models 330) may assert that the TUMOR is PRESENT.
The preceding describes analyzing text that has a recognized entity type classification to assert information of the recognized entity. It does not describe asserting information about a standardized entity. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this disclosure as suggesting or supporting generating assertions regarding standardized entities. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 13 and 20 are similarly rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13, which is representative of claims 1 and 20, recites: a method, comprising:
identifying,
generating,
determining,
generating a patient-specific knowledge graph from the structured data using one or more semantic networks; and
comparing, using the one or more semantic networks, the patient-specific knowledge graph with at least one reference knowledge graph to detect one or more contradictions or incompleteness conditions in the medical report, wherein the at least one reference knowledge graph is generated based on reference information selected from the group consisting of clinical guideline information applicable to the medical report and medical history for the patient;
providing,
receiving,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of analyzing a document, providing an editing suggestion, and gathering feedback regarding the suggestion. This concept describes a mental process that an editor should follow to provide editing feedback similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, and “judgement” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, this concept as claimed does not require a scale of data beyond the mental faculties of a human being and the operations and can be performed in the human mind. As such, these limitation set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory. Claim 13 recites the additional element of a system comprising at least one processor. Claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory machine-readable medium. These additional elements are all recited at a very high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of an artificial intelligence model and retraining the artificial intelligence model. The incorporation of this model and the retraining of it amounts to instructions to use a generic computing device to implement the abstract idea. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional elements of receiving user input via a graphical user interface and providing information via the graphical user interface. The reception and display of data with a graphical user interface is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the identified abstract idea. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the claims into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements receiving user input via a graphical user interface and providing information via the graphical user interface. However, Anderson et al. (US 2005/0010416 A1) demonstrates (“the device will provide conventional GUI dialogs for displaying information and obtaining input” [0125]) that such operations with a graphical user interface were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 further describe the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14-18 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea for equivalent reasons as those provided above. Therefore these claims remain directed to an abstract idea. Additionally, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for equivalent reasons as those provided above. Dependent claim 11 and 19 recites an additional element of a generative large language model. However, the incorporation of this LLM continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As such, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea or the narrowed abstract idea for equivalent reasons as those provided above. Therefore these claims remain directed to an abstract idea. Additionally, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, do not amount to significantly more than either the abstract idea or the narrowed abstract idea for equivalent reasons as those provided above. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claims 1-20: Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) … for indefiniteness issues which have been corrected via the amendments made herein.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issues. The prior rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
Here, the claimed invention improves the manner in which computers process clinical narrative data by converting free-text medical reports into structured, ontology-linked representations and performing graph-based analysis using one or more semantic networks.
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the claimed operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. … Semantic network processing involves traversing and evaluating large-scale, multi-node graph structures with formalized edge types, ontology constraints, and potentially probabilistic or learned weights. These operations are inherently computational and exceed the cognitive capabilities of a human performing mental steps.
Here, the use of semantic networks to perform graph-based inconsistency detection constitutes a specific asserted improvement.
The USPTO’s recent guidance regarding artificial intelligence makes clear that the claims directed to AI-based inventions are eligible when they recite specific technological improvements or specific implementations of AI techniques. The present claims do precisely that. The claims do not merely invoke a generic AI model but instead require generating structured clinical representations and performing knowledge graph-based comparisons tied to specific clinical data sources (e.g., guidelines and patient history).
The claimed operations are not ones that can be practically performed in the human mind. Constructing and comparing knowledge graphs derived from structured clinical data and multiple external data sources is a computational process requiring machine implementation.
The claims include specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.“ The instant disclosure does not appear to contain a technical explanation of how to implement the referenced features. As such, these features do not appear to qualify as a technical improvement under the eligibility analysis.
The specification states that “[a] semantic network is a knowledge structure that depicts how concepts are relate to one another and illustrates how they interconnect.” This definition does not require a “large-scale” knowledge structure. Further, Coym (Practical Relevance and Operational Scenarios of Semantic Wikis) provides (Figure 1, reproduced below) a simple semantic network that plainly does not exceed the cognitive capabilities of humans.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As previously noted, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.“ The instant disclosure does not appear to contain a technical explanation of how to implement perform graph-based inconsistency detection. As such, these features do not appear to qualify as a technical improvement under the eligibility analysis.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims do not appear to constitute a technical improvement under the guidance of MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, Examiner notes that the claimed “one or more artificial intelligence models” clearly constitutes a generic AI model.
Applicant’s basis for asserting that the human mind is not capable of constructing or comparing knowledge graphs is unclear to the examiner. It appears to the examiner that most human beings are capable of mentally constructing two knowledge graphs with two nodes and one edge, and then comparing these graphs. The claims do not appear to require graphs of a scale beyond the scope of the capabilities of a human.
The unconventionality consideration of the subject matter eligibility analysis does not apply to the abstract idea. In other words, an unconventional abstract idea does not itself render a claim eligible. Here, the identified features are considered part of the abstract idea. And as such, whether or not they are conventional is not relevant to the claim’s eligibility.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 Rejections of claims 1-20 and 20: Kartoun does not disclose each and every element of the independent claims arranged as recited and therefore cannot anticipate the pending claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 1 April 2026. Applicant’s arguments, based on the extensive amendments, are persuasive. Therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 14 January 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-06-24
Prosecution Insights