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 .
Status of Claims
In the response dated July 17, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6-8, 14-16, 20, and 21. Claim 5 was canceled, and claims 12 and 19 were previously canceled. Claim 23 was added. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are pending in the current application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts that the claims reduce hallucinations in machine learning models by generating a knowledge graph data structure….and then uses the knowledge graph data structure to validate inferences from a machine-learned model, thereby improving outputs from the machine-learned model in light of Desjardins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Desjardins, the ARP that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks. In this case, the claims recite conventional machine learning models without specific improvements to the technology itself. The specification discloses iteratively operating the machine-learned model (Paragraph [0100]), and training model configured to receive training data (Paragraph [0053]), which is inherent to all machine learning models and thus does not confer eligibility. Second, Applicant asserts that the claims are similar to Claim 2 of Example 35 of 2016 SME because the combination of steps in unconventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of claim 2 were deemed to describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN. Unlike Claim 2, the claims do not differ from the conventional sequence of steps of determining relationship strengths using models, knowledge graphs, and conditional probability. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The combination of references does not teach or suggest, “determining relationship strengths between pairs of the medical entities including determining, for each of the pairs of the medical entities, a first conditional probability that a first entity in the pair is true given a second entity in the pair is true and a second conditional probability that the second entity in the pair is true given that the first entity in the pair is true” and “validating an inference output from a machine-learned model using the relationship strengths in the knowledge graph data structure to determine a conditional probability of the inference output given one or more medical entities” because the relationship strength is determined using a medical relationship training model. Although, the relationship strength represents the likelihood (i.e., probability) that a medical relationship exists (Ghosh Paragraph [0059]), the relationship strength is not determined using a first and second conditional probability comprising entity pairs as recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 20. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable medium and system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 15 (representative of independent claims 1 and 20) recite:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a set of structured records containing patient clinical information;
extracting a set of medical entities from the clinical information;
determining relationship strengths between pairs of the medical entities including determining, for each of the pairs of the medical entities, a first conditional probability that a first entity in the pair is true given a second entity in the pair is true and a second conditional probability that the second entity in the pair is true given that the first entity in the pair is true; and
configuring a computer-readable memory with a knowledge graph data structure in which nodes of the knowledge graph data structure represent the medical entities and the nodes are related to one another in the knowledge graph data structure based on the relationship strengths; and
validating an inference output from a machine-learned model using the relationship strengths in the knowledge graph data structure to determine a conditional probability of the inference output given one or more medical entities
The identified limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, memory, and machine learning model (interpreted as computer environment) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the identified limitations encompass a healthcare professional collecting medical entity information such as electronic health records, determining via observation the relationship strength between medical entities using conditional probability, and then drawing a knowledge graph based on the observed relationship strengths. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claimed invention recites a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, the processor, memory, and machine learning model (interpreted as computer environment) in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 21-23, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated above, the processor, memory, and machine learning model (interpreted as computer environment) in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-23, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 21-23, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights