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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 21-32 has been examined and are addressed below.
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 1-8, 21-32 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 1-8, 21-32 are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1, 13 and 39 recite “generating a transcript of information to be recorded in a flowsheet; selecting, from a plurality of rows in the flowsheet and based on the transcript, a subset of rows relevant to the transcript of the information, wherein each row corresponds to a key and a value for the flowsheet; extracting an instance of information from the transcript of information associated with a key from the subset of rows by processing a prompt including at least a portion of the transcript of information and the subset of rows with a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model using retrieval augmented generation (RAG); and populating a value of a row in the subset of rows corresponding to the key from the subset of rows with the instance of information”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “processor”, “memory”, “computer program product”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not recite the additional element of which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
-paragraph 38 recites that “client electronic devices 518, 520, 522, 524 may include, but are not limited to, personal computing device 518 (e.g., a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, and a desktop computer), audio input device 520 (e.g., a handheld microphone, a lapel microphone, an embedded microphone (such as those embedded within eyeglasses, smart phones, tablet computers and/or watches) and an audio recording device), display device 522 (e.g., a tablet computer, a computer monitor, and a smart television), a hybrid device (e.g., a single device that includes the functionality of one or more of the above-references devices; not shown), an audio rendering device (e.g., a speaker system, a headphone system, or an earbud system; not shown), and a dedicated network device (not shown)”.
The claims do not recite the additional element of which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 22-28, 30-32 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims fall under software per se. Applicant’s specifications states that “the computer-usable medium may include a propagated data signal with the computer-usable program code embodied therewith, either in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. The computer usable program code may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to the Internet, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 21-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (2024/0387025) in view of Bellegarda (6285785).
With respect to claim 1 Shah teaches a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
selecting, from a plurality of rows in the flowsheet and based on the transcript, a subset of rows relevant to the transcript of the information, wherein each row corresponds to a key and a value for the flowsheet (the input to the model needs to be numerical) (Shah paragraph 0133);
extracting an instance of information from the transcript of information associated with a key from the subset of rows by processing a prompt including at least a portion of the transcript of information and the subset of rows with a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model using retrieval augmented generation (RAG) (the LLM 130 includes a retrieval argument generation (RAD) module 234..) (Shah paragraph 0059);; and
populating a value of a row in the subset of rows corresponding to the key from the subset of rows with the instance of information (the AI checklist 502 may include outputting some or all of the interaction in form (populating a value of a row)…) (Shah paragraph 0071).
Shah does not teach generating a transcript of information to be recorded in a flowsheet.
Bellegarda generating a transcript segment vector by embedding the instance of information in the segment into a vector and determining a similarity between the transcript segment vector and the combined vector (a combined feature vector specifically , a concatenation of the speech feature vector of fig. 4d with another form of handwriting feature vector that is generated from fig. 4a by performing a frequency analysis similar to fig.4c) (fig. 4a-4f). This suggests the concept of matching two vector to find similarity between vectors. Therefore, would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SHAH t include matching two vector to find similarity between vectors as disclosed Bellegarda in order to provide similar vector for data populating.
Claim 21 is rejected as above.
Claim 29 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the transcript is generated using an automated speech recognition (ASR) system from dictation from a healthcare provider, and from a conversation between at least one healthcare provider and a patient (Shah paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 3 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein each key of the flowsheet corresponds to an instance of patient information (Shah paragraph 138).
With respect to claim 4 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: segmenting the transcript of information into a plurality of segments (Shah paragraph 164).
With respect to claim 5 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein segmenting the transcript of information includes generating at least one segment by segmenting the dictation into at least one information portion corresponding to an instance of the patient information (Shah paragraph 63).
With respect to claim 6 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the value in each row is in the form of one of: an integer, a float figure, string, date, time, a selection from a single-choice list, a selection from a multi-choice list, and a custom type (Shah paragraph 37).
With respect to claim 7 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selecting the subset of rows includes selecting, from a plurality of examples, a subset of examples corresponding to the transcript of information (Shah paragraph 82).
With respect to claim 8 Shah teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein extracting the instance of information includes: generating the prompt to include the at least a portion of the transcript of information, the subset of rows, and the subset of examples; and processing the prompt with the generative AI model using RAG (Shah paragraph 59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights