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 received May 26, 2026, Applicant amended claim 9 and added claim 21. Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 9 was objected to for minor informalities. Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the claim. The objection has been obviated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts that the claims do not fall under the Certain Methods of Human Activity grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the memory and artificial intelligence (interpreted as computer environment), the context of the claim encompasses a transcribing clinician-patient conversation for the purpose of providing treatment plans or recommendations. The claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Second, Applicant asserts that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application because the claim in not obvious and utilizes artificial intelligence. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). In this case, the prior art rejection was overcome because the claim elements were not found in the art. However, finding an inventive concept within the claims requires evaluating improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer. Unlike Desjardins, the artificial intelligence in the claims recites conventional AI/machine learning models without specific improvements to the technology itself because simply applying generic machine learning techniques to convert patient-clinician conversations to text without improving the underlying technology is insufficient for patent eligibility. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art references of records do not teach patient embeddings. Lin teaches topic embeddings, which are indicative of the conversation itself, rather than the patient. The rejection has 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-21 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 1-21 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 1-21 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 1 (representative of independent claims 17 and 21) recite
an input module configured to recognize, in real time, spoken language and convert the spoken language to a computer readable form to generate a patient embedding, wherein the computer readable form includes a mathematical vector associated with the patient embedding, and wherein the spoken language includes a conversation between a clinician and a patient during a patient visit;
a memory configured to store the patient embedding in a database of existing patient embeddings;
an analytics module configured to, in real time:
use one or more artificial intelligence based analytical techniques to parse the patient embedding and catalog portions of the patient embedding into a plurality of categories including patient history, patient symptoms, patient condition, patient medication, patient allergy, patient concerns, likely medical billing codes for services rendered during the patient visit;
compare the patient embedding to the database of existing patient embeddings and determine a confidence matching score of the patient embedding relative to one or more existing patient embeddings; and
automatically generate a set of post visit instructions and automatically generate a patient post visit record based at least in part on one or more existing patient embeddings having a confidence matching score greater than or equal to a first predetermined threshold; and
an output module configured to, in real time:
provide to the clinician via one or more different media the patient post visit record in a standardized format; and
automatically execute the set of post visit administrative instructions.
The identified limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the memory and artificial intelligence (interpreted as computer environment), the context of the claim encompasses a transcribing clinician-patient conversation for the purpose of providing treatment plans or recommendations. The claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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.
As a whole, the additional elements recite using the memory to implement the abstract idea. The memory and artificial intelligence in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality 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.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20, 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 memory and artificial intelligence in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts 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 1-21, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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