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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea consisting of a method and device for providing information on hypotension implemented by a processor includes: receiving first clinical data and second clinical data for an individual; extracting a statistical value for the received first clinical data as a first feature; extracting an embedding vector for the received second clinical data as a second feature; and predicting whether the hypotension occurs in the individual within a first period by inputting the first feature and the second feature to a prediction model trained to predict whether the hypotension occurs using the first feature and the second feature as inputs.
Independent method Claim 1 and comparable independent device Claim 11 recite “receiving first clinical data and second clinical data for an individual; extracting a statistical value for the received first clinical data as a first feature; extracting an embedding vector for the received second clinical data as a second feature; and predicting whether the hypotension occurs in the individual within a first period by inputting the first feature and the second feature to a prediction model trained to predict whether the hypotension occurs using the first feature and the second feature as inputs.”
The limitations of Claims 1 and 11, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a Mental Process which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or Mathematical Concepts which are concepts performed that encompasses mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “communication unit and processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or using concepts performed that encompasses mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For example, but for the “communication unit” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually retrieving clinical data. Similarly, the extracting, a statistical value for the received first clinical data as a first feature, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and using concepts performed that encompasses mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using concepts performed that encompasses mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a “communication unit and processor” to perform all of the “receiving, extracting and predicting” steps. The “communication unit and processor” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) of executing computer-executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s) such that it amounts 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.
Claim 1 has no additional element. Claim 11 has the following additional elements (i.e., communication unit and processor). The use of a general-purpose computer, taken alone, does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology). These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Examiner notates below the reasons why the claims overcome the prior art. The limitations most likely to distinguish over the cited combination of Ryan et al. in view ROCKNE et al., are at least wherein the methods of extracting of the embedding vector as the second feature includes extracting as the second feature a first window having the size smaller than that of the first period from the received second clinical data by the rolling windows of the first window at the predetermined time interval, and the extracting of the embedding vector as the second feature includes: extracting first extraction data having a size of the first window based on the first window from the received second clinical data; segmenting the extracted first extraction data into a predetermined size; extracting second extraction data for a portion of an initial period from the segmented first extraction data; sampling the extracted second extraction data so that the extracted second extraction data is transformed into an embedding feature in a digital form; and inputting the embedding feature to a transformer encoder and outputting the embedding feature as the embedding vector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No.: US 20240290499 A1 to Hsu et al.; A system and method of predicting a medical diagnosis is disclosed. The method includes receiving claims data, clinical data and demographic data and detecting a prediction target for the diagnosis. If present, inputting the prediction indicator and the clinical data into a machine learning model to predict diagnosis risk, to create a diagnosis risk score; determining a care seeking propensity score, from the demographic data; weighting the diagnosis risk score by the care seeking propensity score to create a weighted diagnosis risk score; determining whether the weighted diagnosis risk score indicates a likelihood of the medical diagnosis; and, in response, transmitting a recommendation for further evaluation. The machine learning model may be trained using historical claims data, clinical data, and demographic data and may be trained to detect correlation between medical diagnosis signals identified from the training data, and a positive result from a screening mechanism the medical diagnosis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683