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 priority to the following application(s):
* 63611977 filed on 19 December 2023
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on the following date(s) is/are entered and considered by Examiner:
* 18 December 2024
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) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving natural language input text characterizing clinical data for a patient diagnosed with a particular disease, the clinical data comprising:
patient information comprising a name of the particular disease the patient is diagnosed with and an initial diagnosis date of the particular disease;
treatment information comprising a number of different treatment regimens administered to the patient for treating the particular disease; and
outcome information indicating treatment responses to the treatment regimens administered to the patient;
receiving a prompt composition comprising:
adjudication rules that specify rules for performing lines of therapy adjudication; and
an instruction parameter that specifies a task for a large language model (LLM) to synthesize a group of multiple synthetic experts that each use the adjudication rules to perform chain-of-thought reasoning for making lines of therapy (LoT) adjudication decisions based on the natural language input text and collaborate with one another to agree upon a predicted number of LoT administered to the patient;
structuring an adjudication prompt by concatenating the prompt composition to the natural language input text;
processing, using the LLM, the adjudication prompt to cause the LLM to synthesize the group of multiple synthetic experts and generate a respective group answer as output from the group of multiple synthetic experts, the group answer indicating the predicted number of LoT agreed upon by each synthetic expert in the group of multiple synthetic experts; and
determining a final answer based on the respective group answer generated as output from the group of multiple synthetic experts, the final answer comprising an adjudicated list of LoT for each of the number of different treatment regimens administered to the patient.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the steps of processing data to generate a diagnosis are traditionally performed by a human being, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a computer recited with a high level of generality invoked in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the steps structuring a prompt, processing the received data, and determining the diagnosis may be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2-15 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
receiving natural language input text characterizing clinical data for a patient diagnosed with a particular disease, the clinical data comprising:
patient information comprising a name of the particular disease the patient is diagnosed with and an initial diagnosis date of the particular disease;
treatment information comprising a number of different treatment regimens administered to the patient for treating the particular disease; and
outcome information indicating treatment responses to the treatment regimens administered to the patient;
receiving a prompt composition comprising:
adjudication rules that specify rules for performing lines of therapy adjudication; and
an instruction parameter that specifies a task for a large language model (LLM) to synthesize a group of multiple synthetic experts that each use the adjudication rules to perform chain-of-thought reasoning for making lines of therapy (LoT) adjudication decisions based on the natural language input text and collaborate with one another to agree upon a predicted number of LoT administered to the patient;
using the LLM.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The LLM amounts amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
The steps of receiving data merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims.
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.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the steps of receiving data, these limitations amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims.
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.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 16-30 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1-15 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-30 distinguish(es) over the prior art for the following reasons.
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claim 1: the primary reason for the indication of subject matter free of prior art is the inclusion of the following limitations in the combination as recited in the abstract concept and not found in the closest available prior art of record:
receiving natural language input text characterizing clinical data for a patient diagnosed with a particular disease, the clinical data comprising:
patient information comprising a name of the particular disease the patient is diagnosed with and an initial diagnosis date of the particular disease;
treatment information comprising a number of different treatment regimens administered to the patient for treating the particular disease; and
outcome information indicating treatment responses to the treatment regimens administered to the patient;
receiving a prompt composition comprising:
adjudication rules that specify rules for performing lines of therapy adjudication; and
an instruction parameter that specifies a task for a large language model (LLM) to synthesize a group of multiple synthetic experts that each use the adjudication rules to perform chain-of-thought reasoning for making lines of therapy (LoT) adjudication decisions based on the natural language input text and collaborate with one another to agree upon a predicted number of LoT administered to the patient;
structuring an adjudication prompt by concatenating the prompt composition to the natural language input text;
processing, using the LLM, the adjudication prompt to cause the LLM to synthesize the group of multiple synthetic experts and generate a respective group answer as output from the group of multiple synthetic experts, the group answer indicating the predicted number of LoT agreed upon by each synthetic expert in the group of multiple synthetic experts; and
determining a final answer based on the respective group answer generated as output from the group of multiple synthetic experts, the final answer comprising an adjudicated list of LoT for each of the number of different treatment regimens administered to the patient.
The closest available prior art of record are as follows:
Barber discloses receiving patient data (paragraph 0017-0018, 0065-0069) and generating a treatment for the patient (paragraph 0243-0261), but does not fairly disclose or suggest generating a series of prompt and using a set of experts to generate a chain of thought.
Kumar (20230133829) discloses identifying pharmaceutical treatments from transaction and medical data (paragraph 0031-0036, 0096-0135), but does not fairly disclose or suggest generating a series of prompt and using a set of experts to generate a chain of thought.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art.
Claim(s) 2-15: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to parent claim 1 above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 16-30: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for substantially similar rationale as applied to claim(s) 1-15 above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaffield (20220164473) discloses charting medical data to generate a diagnosis and treatment (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Dandala (20190295695) discloses reviewing a patient record to generate a treatment option (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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 on (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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights