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:
Claims 8-13 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 1-7 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 14-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (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 8 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites:
8. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a set of identification factors that are relevant to a set of clinical records associated with an electronic digital memory of a medical records computer system;
identifying a set of target data corresponding to a subset of clinical records in the set of clinical records utilizing the set of identification factors, the set of target data corresponding at least partially to a longitudinal sequence of conditions or states of a plurality of longitudinal sequences of conditions or states;
generating, via one or more hardware processors and based on at least a portion of the plurality of longitudinal sequences of conditions or states, a trajectory mining table of entities;
based on the trajectory mining table of entities, determining for a candidate record of the subset of clinical records: a first distance between the candidate record and a first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and a second distance between the candidate record and a second cluster of the plurality of clusters;
comparing the first distance and the second distance to determine an association between the candidate record and at least the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and
electronically writing, via the one or more hardware processors, encoded data to the electronic digital memory of the medical records computer system, wherein: the encoded data associates the candidate record with the first cluster of the plurality of clusters at the electronic digital memory of the medical records computer system.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because receiving a set of identification factors that are relevant to a set of clinical records; identifying a set of target data corresponding to a subset of clinical records in the set of clinical records utilizing the set of identification factors, the set of target data corresponding at least partially to a longitudinal sequence of conditions or states of a plurality of longitudinal sequences of conditions or states; generating based on at least a portion of the plurality of longitudinal sequences of conditions or states, a trajectory mining table of entities; based on the trajectory mining table of entities, determining for a candidate record of the subset of clinical records: a first distance between the candidate record and a first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and a second distance between the candidate record and a second cluster of the plurality of clusters; comparing the first distance and the second distance to determine an association between the candidate record and at least the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and wherein: data associates the candidate record with the first cluster of the plurality of clusters 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, 8, and 14, 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 an electronic digital memory, a records computer system, one or more hardware processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media 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 electronic digital memory, records computer system, one or more hardware processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, identifying data, generating data, determining data, comparing data, writing encoded data, and associating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 14. Therefore, claim(s) 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 describe further limitations regarding wherein the plurality of clusters characterize at least partially a fifth set of condition episode patterns, generating a particular intervention to treat a patient for a particular condition or disease associated with the candidate record based on the associated at least one cluster; generating a multidimensional data point representing the candidate record, determining the first distance based on the difference between the multidimensional data point and the first cluster, associating the candidate record with one or more timeseries clusters based on a determined trajectory distance exceeding a predetermined threshold; calculating a plurality of cluster distances for the plurality of clusters, the cluster distances defining boundaries relating to each cluster, and determining one or more trajectory distances between a multidimensional data point representing the candidate record and a centroid of each of the plurality of clusters; generating a composite complexity metric from at least (a) a first complexity type or complexity category and (b) a second complexity type or complexity category that differs from the a first complexity type or complexity category; generating a periodic case complexity based at least partially on the composite complexity metric; and creating at least one data frame based on at least one longitudinal sequence of condition or states, wherein the at least one data frame includes at least one timeseries. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, and 14, 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, 8, and 14 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 one or more hardware processors electronically writing data to electronic digital memory and one or more hardware processors receiving factors, 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 storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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
Claims 2, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the associated at least one cluster” to “the associated first cluster.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the a first complexity type…” to “the first complexity type….“ Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the plurality of clusters” to “a plurality of clusters” at lines 14-15 of claim 1, lines 13-14 of claim 8, and lines 15-16 of claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added recitation of "receiving a set of identification factors that are relevant to a set of clinical records associated with an electronic digital memory of a medical records computer system; identifying a set of target data corresponding to a subset of clinical records in the set of clinical records utilizing the set of identification factors…comparing the first distance and the second distance to determine an association between the candidate record and at least the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and electronically writing, via the one or more hardware processors, encoded data to the electronic digital memory of the medical records computer system, wherein: the encoded data associates the candidate record with the first cluster of the plurality of clusters at the electronic digital memory of the medical records computer system” within claim 1 appears to constitute new matter. Similar limitations appear in claims 8 and 14, and are therefore also rejected. The newly added recitation of “wherein the plurality of clusters characterize at least partially a fifth set of condition episode patterns” within claims 2, 9, and 15 also appear to constitute new matter.
In particular, Applicant does not point to, nor was the Examiner able to find support for this newly added language within the specification as originally filed. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, the closest prior art, Loghmani (US 2012/0185275 A1) and Kil (US 2008/0147441 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest: generating, via the one or more hardware processors and based on at least a portion of the plurality of longitudinal sequences of conditions or states, a trajectory mining table of entities; based on the trajectory mining table of entities, determining for a candidate record of the subset of clinical records: a first distance between the candidate record and a first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and a second distance between the candidate record and a second cluster of the plurality of clusters; comparing the first distance and the second distance to determine an association between the candidate record and at least the first cluster of the plurality of clusters. As such, claims 1-20 are free of prior art.
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 detection of risk factors using trajectory mining (Tsumoto et al); method, system, and software for analyzing pharmacovigilance data (WO-2006047491-A2); and medical treatment fee lattice model established based on big data analysis method (CN-106326642-A).
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