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 the Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on December 27, 2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner.
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 1-19 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 1-19 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-9 are drawn to a device for analyzing patient records, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 10-14 are drawn to a method for analyzing patient records, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 15-19 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for analyzing patient records, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A determination device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire electronic receipt information about a patient;
determine necessity of a detailed description of a symptom of the patient based on the electronic receipt information about the patient using a learned model that has learned electronic receipt information excluding a detailed description of a symptom in a past and a condition requiring a detailed description of a symptom; and
output a determination result.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of acquiring patient receipt information and determining the necessity of a detailed description of a patient symptom based on the patient receipt information using a learned model are reasonably interpreted as steps that could be performed mentally) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the memory and processor), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of acquiring patient receipt information, and determining the necessity of a detailed description of a patient symptom based on the patient receipt information using a learned model are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions to inform users of the need for detailed patient information), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 10 and 15 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 10, and 15 is that Claim 1 recites a device, whereas Claims 10 and 15 recite a method and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium respectively.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 11, and 16 recite performing the process recited in Claims 1, 10, and 15 for a plurality of patients, and outputting a list of the results, Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 17-18 recite outputting a basis for the determination to require the detailed symptom description, Claims 5, 14, and 19 recite outputting a list of patients who need detailed symptom information for a diagnosis, Claim 6 recites data elements used by the learned model, Claim 7 recites acquiring patient receipt for a logged-in user, Claim 8 recites receiving a correction of the output determination result, and Claim 9 recites causing the learned model to relearn receipt information, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Hence dependent Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 10, and 15.
Hence Claims 1-19 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract idea(s).
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory and processor, the receipt being electronic, and the step of outputting the determination result) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the memory and the processor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 4-5 of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language reciting that the receipt information is electronic and for patients, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of digital/electronic healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of outputting of the determination result, which amounts to an insignificant application, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 6), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 10, and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 10, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the memory and processor, the receipt being electronic, and the step of outputting the determination result), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pgs. 4-5 of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the memory and processor) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the acquiring of electronic receipt information about a patient; and/or
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite acquiring electronic receipt information for the patient, and retrieving the electronic receipt information from storage in order to ultimately output the results of a determination of the necessity of a detailed description of a symptom.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 6), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 10, and 15, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-19 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-19 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn (US 2020/0286616).
Regarding Claim 1, Dunn discloses the following: A determination device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (The system includes a memory storing a computer program, e.g. see Dunn [0247].); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (The system includes a programmable processor configured to execute the computer program, e.g. see Dunn [0247].) to:
acquire electronic receipt information about a patient (The system generates healthcare claims data and invoices, e.g. see Dunn [0063]-[0064].);
determine necessity of a detailed description of a symptom of the patient based on the electronic receipt information about the patient (The system includes determines when the data in a claim document or invoice should be flagged, for example when data is inaccurate or missing, and notifies a user of the need for the data, e.g. see Dunn [0059], [0081], [0092], and [0101], wherein the data included in a claim includes patient condition information (i.e. a detailed description of a symptom), e.g. see Dunn [0149]-[0150], [0186], and [0249].) using a learned model that has learned electronic receipt information excluding a detailed description of a symptom in a past and a condition requiring a detailed description of a symptom (The system includes artificial intelligence that tracks and learns from historical data and submitted invoices and rules that are applied to claims, e.g. see Dunn [0106], [0162], [0166], and [0213].); and
output a determination result (The system generates a presentation to a user regarding the inaccuracies or missing data, for example an alarm or message requesting the entry of required data, e.g. see Dunn [0081] and [0101].).
Regarding Claim 2, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire electronic receipt information about a plurality of patients for each of whom a medical act has been performed at a predetermined time (The system is configured to compile data across time for a single client as well as across patients (i.e. a plurality of patients), e.g. see Dunn [0063], [0106], and [0174], wherein the system utilizes historical data to make the determination that data should be flagged for needing additional/missing data for a claim, e.g. see Dunn [0213].);
determine necessity of the detailed description of the symptom of each patient (The system determines the necessity of additional/missing data for claims and flags the claims if additional/missing data is required, e.g. see Dunn [0059], [0081], [0092], and [0101].); and
output a list of patients for each of whom the detailed description of the symptom is required (The system presents flagged data to a user, e.g. see Dunn [0081] and [0101].).
Regarding Claim 3, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output a basis of electronic receipt information determined to require the detailed description of the symptom (The system is configured to determine that a claim should be flagged, wherein the system issues (i.e. outputs) an alarm or message requesting the entry of the required data (i.e. a bases of electronic receipt information determined to require the detailed description), e.g. see Dunn [0059], [0081], [0092], and [0101].).
Regarding Claim 4, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 2, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output a basis of electronic receipt information determined to require the detailed description of the symptom (The system is configured to determine that a claim should be flagged, wherein the system issues (i.e. outputs) an alarm or message requesting the entry of the required data (i.e. a bases of electronic receipt information determined to require the detailed description), e.g. see Dunn [0059], [0081], [0092], and [0101].).
Regarding Claim 6, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein
the learned model is a model that has learned a relationship between electronic receipt information including at least any one of a sick name, content of a medical act, and a score of a claim for a medical fee, and necessity of the detailed description of the symptom (The system includes relationship data between one or more data points that are used to determine the likelihood that a claim will be approved (i.e. the necessity of the detailed description of the symptom), e.g. see Dunn [0165]-[0166], wherein the data points include condition information, wellness agents, and treatment data, e.g. see Dunn [0153].).
Regarding Claim 7, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire electronic receipt information about a patient related to a logged-in user (The system and its functions are accessible to clients, care workers, facilities, and obligators such as insurance providers, by enabling the aforementioned users to log in, e.g. see Dunn [0071], [0121], [0128], and [0135].).
Regarding Claim 8, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a correction of the output determination result (The system receives correction data after it determines correction data is required, e.g. see Dunn [0114] and [0117].).
Regarding Claim 9, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Dunn further discloses the following: The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
cause the learned model to relearn electronic receipt information that has received the correction and necessity of the detailed description of the symptom as learning data (The system utilizes artificial intelligence which learns from invoices that are submitted, e.g. see Dunn [0162], wherein the submitted invoices may include corrected data, e.g. see Dunn [0114] and [0117].).
Regarding Claims 10-13 and 15-18, the limitations of Claims 10-13 and 15-18 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 1-4, with the sole difference being that Claims 1-4 recite a device, whereas Claims 10-13 recite a method, and Claims 15-18 recite a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 10-13 and 15-18, Examiner notes that Dunn teaches a hardware machine, a machine-readable medium, and a method as embodiments of the claimed invention, e.g. see Dunn [0247]-[0248], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 1-4 are similarly applied to Claims 10-13 and 15-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn in view of Yoshida (US 2020/0243173).
Regarding Claim 5, Dunn discloses the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Yoshida teaches the following: The determination device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output a list of patients for each of whom the detailed description of the symptom is required for a diagnosis and treatment department name or a doctor in charge of each patient (The system generates and displays a list of patients, wherein the list indicates various flags associated with the patients, comments relating to procedures for the patient, and doctor names associated with the patient, e.g. see Yoshida [0052], Fig. 6.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Dunn to incorporate generating and displaying a list of patients and their associated treatment and doctor data as taught by Yoshida in order to provide a patient management apparatus that improves the accuracy of explanation about patient conditions and medical examinations, e.g. see Yoshida [0006]-[0007].
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, the limitations of Claims 14 and 19 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 5, with the sole difference being that Claim 5 recites a device, whereas Claim 14 recites a method, and Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 14 and 19, Examiner notes that Dunn teaches a hardware machine, a machine-readable medium, and a method as embodiments of the claimed invention, e.g. see Dunn [0247]-[0248], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 5 are similarly applied to Claims 14 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681