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 .
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.
Step 1:
Claim 19 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 1-18 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 19 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 19 recites:
19. A method comprising: accessing historical patient information associated with a patient; identifying a plurality of events in the historical patient information that satisfy one or more criteria; processing, by a first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, to generate a historical health output associated with the patient; generating, for display in a graphical user interface, one or more interactive medical tiles associated with the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, according to the historical health output associated with the patient; receiving a selection of one of the interactive medical tiles; and presenting, in the graphical user interface, the plurality of events according to an organization criterion in response to receiving the selection of one of the interactive medical tiles.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because accessing historical patient information associated with a patient; identifying a plurality of events in the historical patient information that satisfy one or more criteria; processing the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, to generate a historical health output associated with the patient; generating the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, according to the historical health output associated with the patient; and presenting the plurality of events according to an organization criterion amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 19, and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a graphical user interface, interactive tiles, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions, and a computer system comprising memory hardware and processor hardware to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the graphical user interface, tiles, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer system, memory hardware and processor hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of accessing information, identifying information, processing information, generating data, receiving data, and presenting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations regarding a large language model (LLM) do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (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. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-18 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-18 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-18 describe further limitations regarding a health summary format including an output format, displaying events, accessing historical patient information, assigning a weight, processing the plurality of events, receiving input, processing the input and prompt, processing the historical patient information to predict a set of inquiries, receiving a selection of an inquiry, receiving and processing a medical document, generating a query, obtaining information corresponding to the query, presenting information, processing the historical patient information by an artificial neural network, using training data to identify events, accessing training data, processing the training information, computing a deviation, and updating one or more parameters. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 19 and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to accessing information and receiving a selection, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: see paragraph 132 of US 2009/0132942 A1 which demonstrates that generating one or more tiles for display in a graphical user interface is a conventional limitation.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “summary one…” to “summary of one….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: add “wherein” prior to “accessing historical…” at line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear whether or not the “a plurality of events” in claim 18 is the same “a plurality of events” in independent claim 1, or if they are different events. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Elangovan discloses A computer system comprising (para. 86 & 87 and Fig. 10 of Elangovan):
memory hardware configured to store historical patient information and computer-executable instructions (see Fig. 10, para. 86-88, 46, and 54 of Elangovan; FIG. 10 illustrates such a general-purpose computing device 1000. In the illustrated embodiment, computing device 1000 includes one or more processors 1002 coupled to a system memory 1010 (which may comprise both non-volatile and volatile memory modules) via an input/output (I/O) interface 1008. Processors 1002 may be any suitable processors capable of executing instructions. The succinct general style 312 may provide a brief overview of the patient's medical history, current condition, and relevant treatment plans as a concise summary (without delving into excessive details). The succinct diabetics style 316 may focus on summarizing information related to diabetes and provide a condensed summary of a patient's diabetic history, including their blood sugar levels, treatment regimen, complications, and recommended lifestyle modifications which are specific to diabetes.); and
processor hardware configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions include (para. 86-88 of Elangovan; Processors 1002 may be any suitable processors capable of executing instructions.):
accessing historical patient information associated with a patient (para. 54 of Elangovan; the succinct general style 312 may provide a brief overview of the patient's medical history, current condition, and relevant treatment plans as a concise summary (without delving into excessive details). The succinct diabetics style 316 may focus on summarizing information related to diabetes and provide a condensed summary of a patient's diabetic history, including their blood sugar levels, treatment regimen, complications, and recommended lifestyle modifications which are specific to diabetes.);
identifying a plurality of events in the historical patient information that satisfy one or more criteria (para. 54 of Elangovan; the user preferred style 103 may be selected from the available summarization styles 310 (e.g., a succinct general style 312, a detailed general style 314, a succinct diabetics style 316, etc.), wherein the available summarization styles 310 are summarization styles 138 for which a large language model 136 of the summarization module 140 has been trained. In some embodiments, the summarization styles 138 may be characterized using different criteria. For example, the summarization styles 138 may vary based on linguistic characteristics, medical specialty, purpose, intended audience, and specific medical condition. In another example, the succinct general style 312 may provide a brief overview of the patient's medical history, current condition, and relevant treatment plans as a concise summary (without delving into excessive details). The succinct diabetics style 316 may focus on summarizing information related to diabetes and provide a condensed summary of a patient's diabetic history, including their blood sugar levels, treatment regimen, complications, and recommended lifestyle modifications which are specific to diabetes.);
processing, by a first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, to generate a historical health output associated with the patient (para. 54, 68, 31, and 32 of Elangovan; audio may be live-streamed (or streamed with a delay) to the medical transcription service while the patient appointment is in progress. The transcription service may receive audio data from the medical conversation and may begin to generate the transcript while continuing to receive audio data from the same medical conversation. The transcript and metadata may be provided to a medical natural language processing service to generate a summary of the medical conversation using the transcript. The user preferred style 103 may comprise a style selection 302 from a set of available summarization styles 310. For example, the user preferred style 103 may be selected from the available summarization styles 310 (e.g., a succinct general style 312, a detailed general style 314, a succinct diabetics style 316, etc.), wherein the available summarization styles 310 are summarization styles 138 for which a large language model 136 of the summarization module 140 has been trained. In some embodiments, the summarization styles 138 may be characterized using different criteria. For example, the summarization styles 138 may vary based on linguistic characteristics, medical specialty, purpose, intended audience, and specific medical condition. In another example, the succinct general style 312 may provide a brief overview of the patient's medical history, current condition, and relevant treatment plans as a concise summary (without delving into excessive details). The succinct diabetics style 316 may focus on summarizing information related to diabetes and provide a condensed summary of a patient's diabetic history, including their blood sugar levels, treatment regimen, complications, and recommended lifestyle modifications which are specific to diabetes.);
generating, for display in a graphical user interface, one or more interactive medical sections associated with the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, according to the historical health output associated with the patient (see Figures 3 & 5C, para. 47 & 52-54 of Elangovan; the medical audio summarization service 100 may implement interface(s) 211 to allow clients (e.g., client(s) 250 or clients implemented internally within provider network 200, such as a client application hosted on another provider network service like an event driven code execution service or virtual compute service) to interact with the medical audio summarization service 100. The interface(s) 211 may be one or more of graphical user interfaces, programmatic interfaces that implement Application Program Interfaces (APIs) and/or command line interfaces, such as input interface 101, user setting interface 108, output interface 146, and/or output APIs 148, for example as shown in FIG. 1. FIG. 3 illustrates a high-level view of components of a medical audio summarization service that receives an indication of a medical conversation to be summarized and generates, based on the indication, a summary conforming to a preferred summarization style of a user of the medical audio summarization service).
Elangovan does not expressly disclose generating one or more interactive medical tiles; receiving a selection of one of the interactive medical tiles; and presenting, in the graphical user interface, the plurality of events according to an organization criterion in response to receiving the selection of one of the interactive medical tiles.
Hill discloses generating one or more interactive medical tiles (para. 77, 78, and 148 of Hill, JR.; the output data 128 can be provided to relevant entities or users (e.g., staff at the medical facility) in real-time via a graphical user interface (GUI) tile or dashboard at one or more devices associated with the relevant entities or users. It should be appreciated that additional tiles/windows can be generated for platelet transfusion procedures and cryoprecipitate transfusion procedures upon selection.); receiving a selection of one of the interactive medical tiles and presenting, in the graphical user interface, the plurality of events according to an organization criterion in response to receiving the selection of one of the interactive medical tiles (para. 69, 77, 78, 148, and 149 of Hill, JR.; The dashboard UI 500 provides several filters 502 that can be selected to control the procedure information displayed in the primary dashboard display area. For example, the transfusion procedure data can be filtered by blood product type, date range, facility (e.g., a specific hospital/clinic location), department (e.g., cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, critical care, emergency, gastroenterology, etc.), and provider (e.g., ordering doctors/clinicians). In the embodiment shown, the RBC and plasma blood product types are selected which results in generation of an RBC summary tile 504 for the RBC transfusions and a plasma summary tile 506 for the plasma transfusions. It should be appreciated that additional tiles/windows can be generated for platelet transfusion procedures and cryoprecipitate transfusion procedures upon selection. In the embodiment shown, the transfusion procedures represented in RBC summary tile 504 and the plasma summary tile 506 cover all facilities, all departments and all providers (e.g., doctors/clinicians).).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Hill within Elangovan. The motivation for doing so would have been so that the output data can be provided to relevant entities or users in real-time (para. 77 of Hill, JR.).
Claims 19 and 20 differ from claim 1 by reciting “A method comprising…“ (see para. 23 of Elangovan) and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions for performing operations comprising…“ (see para. 94 of Elangovan).
The remainder of claims 19 and 20 repeat the same limitations as claim 1, and are therefore also rejected for the same reasons given above.
(B) Referring to claim 2, Elangovan discloses wherein: the one or more interactive medical sections are displayed in a health summary format on the graphical user interface and the health summary format is specified according to the historical health output from the LLM (see Figures 3 & 5C and para. 54, 67, and 76 of Elangovan).
Elangovan does not expressly disclose one or more interactive tiles. However, tiles are old and well-known, as evidenced by Hill, JR. (see para. 77, 78, and 148 of Hill, JR.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Hill within Elangovan. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist in reporting the output data in real-time (para. 78 of Hill, JR.).
(C) Referring to claim 3, Elangovan discloses wherein the health summary format includes at least one of: a chatbot conversation textual output format; a health journey timeline output format; a periodic update textual output format; and a social media update output format (para. 40 of Elangovan)
(D) Referring to claim 7, Elangovan discloses accessing historical patient information associated with the patient includes accessing multiple electronic health records of the patient from an electronic health record database (para. 54, 33, and 44 of Elangovan).
(E) Referring to claim 8, Elangovan does not expressly disclose wherein accessing historical patient information associated with the patient includes accessing at least one of community and support data associated with the patient, data acquired from one or more wearable devices of the patient, environmental data corresponding to an environment of the patient, or demographic data of the patient.
Hill discloses wherein accessing historical patient information associated with the patient includes accessing at least one of community and support data associated with the patient, data acquired from one or more wearable devices of the patient, environmental data corresponding to an environment of the patient, or demographic data of the patient (para. 48 & 50 of Hill, JR.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Hill within Elangovan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a measure of changes in the physiological parameters over the course of the patient's care (para. 48 of Hill, JR.).
(F) Referring to claim 10, Elangovan discloses wherein processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, includes processing the plurality of events to determine at least one of a healthcare milestone achieved by the patient, a healthcare setback experienced by the patient, healthcare goal progress achieved by the patient, an ally support event associated with the patient, or a healthcare decision made by the patient (para. 54 of Elangovan).
(G) Referring to claim 11, Elangovan discloses wherein processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, includes processing the plurality of events to determine at least one of a healthcare need defined by the patient, a healthcare goal defined by the patient, a best practice related to healthcare for the patient, a provider guidance item for the patient, or a treatment plan for a health condition of the patient (para. 54, 78, and 80 of Elangovan).
(H) Referring to claim 17, Elangovan discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further include processing the historical patient information by an artificial neural network to select the plurality of events, the artificial neural network being trained using training data to identify events that satisfy the one or more criteria (para. 54, 70, 71, & 27-30 of Elangovan).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1), and further in view of
Ezhov et al. (US 2024/0029901 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 4, Elangovan and Hill do not expressly disclose wherein the health summary format includes the chatbot conversation textual output format, and the chatbot conversation textual output format includes at least one health summary comment displayed in response to a user input prompt.
Ezhov discloses wherein the health summary format includes the chatbot conversation textual output format, and the chatbot conversation textual output format includes at least one health summary comment displayed in response to a user input prompt (para. 35, 183, 220, 228, and 229 of Ezhov).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Ezhov within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide information and generate appropriate responses (para. 229 of Ezhov).
(B) Referring to claim 5, Elangovan and Hill do not expressly disclose wherein the health summary format includes the health journey timeline output format, and the health journey timeline output format includes multiple health events displayed in consecutive timeline by event date, next to an electronic health record of the patient corresponding to the health event.
Ezhov discloses wherein the health summary format includes the health journey timeline output format, and the health journey timeline output format includes multiple health events displayed in consecutive timeline by event date, next to an electronic health record of the patient corresponding to the health event (para. 183, 184, 187, and 197 of Ezhov).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Ezhov within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure an appropriate follow-up care and evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen treatment intervention (para. 197 of Ezhov).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1), and further in view of Cooney et al. (US 2018/0365385 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 6, Elangovan and Hill do not disclose wherein the health summary format includes the periodic update textual output format, and the periodic update textual output format includes a summary one or more health events for the patient occurring within a last day, a last week and a last month.
Hill discloses wherein the health summary format includes the periodic update textual output format, and the periodic update textual output format includes a summary one or more health events for the patient occurring within a last day, a last week and a last month (para. 37 & 60 of Cooney).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Cooney within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate evaluating the short term and long term effects (para. 37 of Cooney).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1), and further in view of Sartor et al. (US 2024/0274248 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 9, Elangovan and Hill do not disclose wherein processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, includes assigning a higher weight to the multiple electronic health records of the patient compared to data obtained from other sources.
Sartor discloses wherein processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the plurality of events that satisfy the one or more criteria, includes assigning a higher weight to the multiple electronic health records of the patient compared to data obtained from other sources (para. 55-57, 72, and 91 of Sartor).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Sartor within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to measure reliability (para. 91 of Sartor).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1), and further in view of Earle et al. (US 2024/0111960 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 12, Elangovan and Hill do not disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions include: receiving input from the patient that includes one or more keywords related to an intent associated with one or more of the plurality of events; processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the input from the patient to generate a prompt for a second LLM; and processing the prompt by the second LLM together with the historical patient information to generate a response to the input.
Earle discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions include: receiving input from the patient that includes one or more keywords related to an intent associated with one or more of the plurality of events (para. 44 and 97 of Earle); processing, by the first large language model (LLM), the input from the patient to generate a prompt for a second LLM and processing the prompt by the second LLM together with the historical patient information to generate a response to the input (para. 105, 111, and 41 of Earle).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Earle within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine a likely completion (para. 41 of Earle).
(B) Referring to claim 13, Elangovan and Hill do not disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions further include: processing the historical patient information to predict a set of inquiries associated with the plurality of events; and receiving, as part of the input, a selection of an individual inquiry of the set of inquiries.
Earle discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further include: processing the historical patient information to predict a set of inquiries associated with the plurality of events and receiving, as part of the input, a selection of an individual inquiry of the set of inquiries (para. 1, 16, 19, 20, and 49 of Earle).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Earle within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate conversation (para. 49 of Earle).
(C) Referring to claim 14, Elangovan and Hill do not expressly disclose wherein the first LLM comprises an artificial neural network, and wherein the second LLM comprises an artificial neural network.
Earle discloses wherein the first LLM comprises an artificial neural network, and wherein the second LLM comprises an artificial neural network (para. 1, 49, and 132 of Earle).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Earle within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to mimic the functionality of neurons in the brain (para. 1 of Earle).
(D) Referring to claim 15, Elangovan discloses wherein the input comprises a document inquiry, and the computer-executable instructions further include: receiving a medical document as part of the input; and processing the medical document by the second LLM to predict a set of intents associated with the medical document (para. 26, 27, 37, 39, & 54-57 of Elangovan)
(E) Referring to claim 16, Elangovan wherein the computer-executable instructions further include: generating a query based on content of the medical document and an individual intent of the set of intents; obtaining information corresponding to the query; and presenting the information in the graphical user interface (para. 36 & 37 of Elangovan ).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (US 2024/0428002 A1) in view of Hill, JR et al. (US 2021/0174963 A1), and further in view of Novosad et al. (US 2022/0180524 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 18, Elangovan and Hill do not expressly disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions further include: accessing training data comprising training patient information and corresponding ground truth collections of events in the training patient information that satisfy the one or more criteria; processing, by the artificial neural network, the training patient information to estimate a plurality of events; computing a deviation between the plurality of events and the corresponding ground truth collections of events; and updating one or more parameters of the artificial neural network based on the computed deviation.
Novosad discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions further include: accessing training data comprising training patient information and corresponding ground truth collections of events in the training patient information that satisfy the one or more criteria (para. 77 and 119 of Novosad); processing, by the artificial neural network, the training patient information to estimate a plurality of events (para. 118 and 119 of Novosad); computing a deviation between the plurality of events and the corresponding ground truth collections of events and updating one or more parameters of the artificial neural network based on the computed deviation (para. 119 of Novosad).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Novosad within Elangovan and Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide estimated results (para. 119 of Novosad).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited but not applied prior art teaches systems for controllable summarization of content (US 12,008,332 B1); a workflow predictive analytics engine (US 2020/0160986 A1); and systems and methods for predicting patient responses (US 2023/0343117 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights