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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive a set of intake data;
generate at least one support-based evidenced code based on the set of intake data;
identify at least one support-based recommended action for the at least one support-based evidenced code;
present, at a display, the at least one support-based recommended action for the at least one support-based evidenced code;
receive a selection of the at least one support-based recommended action; and
transmit instructions to cause execution of the at least one support based recommended action.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the steps of generating medical codes and providing actions for a patient are traditionally performed by medical professionals when treating a patient, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the steps of generating and processing data may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2-8 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
a processor; and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive a set of intake data;
present, at a display, the at least one support-based recommended action for the at least one support-based evidenced code;
receive a selection of the at least one support-based recommended action; and
transmit instructions to cause execution of the at least one support based recommended action.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
Regarding the processor, the Specification as originally filed on 05 February 2024 in parent application 63549841 (hereafter referred to as “the Provisional Specification”) discloses a generic computer (page 4-5 paragraph 0020).
Regarding the memory, the Provisional Specification discloses generic memory (page 7 paragraph 0027).
Accordingly, these limitations amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
The steps of receiving, displaying, and transmitting data merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 6-7 reciting an AI prompt, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the step of receiving and transmitting data, these limitations amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Regarding the step of displaying data, Official Notice is taken that displaying data on a computer is old and well known in the pertinent arts, and is therefore considered to be WURC activity in particular fields.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 6-7 reciting an AI prompt, Shope (20240404669) discloses AI prompts in a manner that is WURC (page 4 paragraph 0036). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 9-20 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1-8 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shope.
Claim 1: Shope discloses:
A system (Abstract illustrating a system), comprising:
a processor (page 2 paragraph 0019); and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor (page 7 paragraph 0068 illustrating a memory containing instructions thereon) to:
receive a set of intake data (page 2 paragraph 0020 illustrating receiving data contained on intake forms for the patient);
generate at least one support-based evidenced code based on the set of intake data (Figure 2 illustrating using the patient intake form data to create a feature vector [considered to be a form of “support-based evidenced code”]);
identify at least one support-based recommended action for the at least one support-based evidenced code (page 3 paragraph 0031 illustrating generating a plurality of fields);
present, at a display, the at least one support-based recommended action for the at least one support-based evidenced code (page 3 paragraph 0031 illustrating displaying the generated data);
receive a selection of the at least one support-based recommended action (page 3 paragraph 0032 illustrating selecting an option for rejection or acceptance); and
transmit instructions to cause execution of the at least one support based recommended action (page 3 paragraph 0032 illustrating transferring data when an option is accepted).
Claim 2: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the at least one support-based evidenced code is generated by:
generating a set of evidenced code classifications (page 5 paragraph 0046 illustrating using a classifier to process the intake data); and
selecting the at least one support-based evidenced code from the set of evidenced code based on two or more dimensions of the intake data (Figure 2 illustrating using the patient intake form data to create a feature vector [considered to be a form of “dimensions”]).
Claim 3: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 2, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the at least one support-based evidenced code is selected by a classification model that generates a confidence score, and wherein the confidence score of the at least one support-based evidenced code is above a predetermined threshold (page 1 paragraph 0017 illustrating using a confidence score to rate data fitment).
Claim 4: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 2, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the at least one support-based evidenced code is selected by a spectrum analysis (page 8 paragraph 0072 illustrating a broad spectrum of APIs [considered to be a form of “analysis”]).
Claim 5: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the at least one support-based evidence code is included in a support-based code structure including the at least one support-based evidence code and at least one support element (page 5 paragraph 0046 illustrating using a support vector machine to process the intake data [considered to be a form of “support element”]).
Claim 6: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 5, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the support-based code structure includes at least one information element generated by a generative model (page 5 paragraph 0046 illustrating the use of generative AI).
Claim 7: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 6, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the generative model receives a prompt generated from at least a portion of the set of intake data and outputs the at least one information element in response to the prompt (page 4 paragraph 0036 illustrating using a generative AI prompt to solicit data generation from the AI).
Claim 8: Shope discloses:
The system of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Shope further discloses:
wherein the at least one support-based recommended action is selected from a set of domain-specific available actions (page 6 paragraph 0057 illustrating generating the fields for user acceptance, and processing the fields within the manner prescribed).
Claim(s) 9-20 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1-8 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 05 May 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 8 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In making this argument, Applicant merely asserts that the previously highlighted steps are not directed towards managing personal behavior and/or relationships/interactions between people, i.e. the independent claims do not recite or relate to managing providing actions for a patient. Instead, Applicant merely points to certain portions of the Specification which discloses the steps being performed. No further explanation was provided regarding why one of ordinary skill in the art would regard the highlighted limitations to NOT be directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
While Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered, this argument is merely conclusory, and does not specifically provide any rationale that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the reason that the highlighted portions are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity; Applicant does not even provide any rationale why the cited portions of the Specification would preclude the claims from being directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.+
Accordingly, the claims are still found to be directed towards Certain Methods of Human Activity for the reasons stated above, and incorporated.
On page 8 Applicant provides heading (b) that the claims are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity; however, the body of this section argues the analysis under Mental Processes.
Examiner considers this to be an oversight, and will respond to the body of the arguments directed towards Mental Processes. Additional clarification is requested.
On page 8 Applicant argues that the step of presenting cannot be performed by a human.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the section above, wherein highlighted steps have been provided as being directed towards Mental Processes.
Specifically, the presenting step has not been identified as being directed towards Mental Processes.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, these arguments are completely silent regarding the highlighted portions being directed towards Mental Processes, and are thus found non-persuasive.
On page 9-10 Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement.
It is noted that certain limitations argued by Applicant as providing technical improvement are part of the abstract idea (e.g. generating and identifying certain data). even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04(I)
The additional elements have been directed towards generic computing element and insignificant extrasolution activities in particular fields, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive.
On page 10-11 Applicant argues that the claims provide significantly more.
Similar to the arguments addressed above, certain limitations relied on by Applicant have been found to be part of the abstract idea, and therefore cannot provide significantly more.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive.
On page 12 Applicant argues that the applied art does not disclose a support-based evidence code.
In making this argument, Applicant declines to precisely define what this limitation is.
To the best extent possible, Examiner has determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would include a patient feature vector generated from patient record, as was asserted by Applicant on page 12 from Shope.
Examiner submits that the patient feature vector of Shope is a form of “support-based evidence” because the data was derived from the patient’s record. This is also considered a form of “code” because the limitation “code” is broad, and is not specifically limited any embodiments disclosed in the Specification.
Similarly, on page 12-13 Applicant further argues that Shope does not disclose a recommended action.
Again, the recited action is broad and can encompass many different embodiments. As discussed in the section above with respect to Shope, any finding regarding any action that is generated from Shope’s patient feature vector is a form of “recommended action”.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive, and specifically because Applicant merely summarizes applicable portions of the applied art without specifically and clearly stating why the recited limitations are not within the metes and bounds of the recited limitations (to which Examiner contends that the applicable portions do disclose the argued limitations, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein).
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blick (20240345699) discloses a medical interpretation system (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Mayoras (20240046769) discloses alerting of patient conditions (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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 on (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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights