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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 06/12/2025, with preliminary amendments filed on 06/13/2025 and 03/04/2026.
Claims 10 and 11 have been amended in the claims filed on 06/13/2025, and are hereby entered. Claim 1 has been amended in the claims filed on 03/04/2026, and is hereby entered.
Claims 5-7 have been canceled in the amendment filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based applications filed in Korea. Certified copies of KR-2022-0175913 (filed 12/15/2022) and KR-2023-0182655 (filed 12/15/2023) as required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received on 06/12/2025. Status of this application as a 371 national stage application of PCT/KR2023/020766 (filed 12/15/2023) is acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s petition to participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program has been granted, based on application KR-2023-0182655 being granted in Korea.
Accordingly, this application is afforded a priority date of 12/15/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “one or more image” rather than “one or more images”. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2-4, 8-11 inherit the deficiencies of parent Claim 1
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the following steps relating to models as part of its method:extracting, by a processor, a tag for an image included in the CRM content while storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit; wherein extracting comprises obtaining, through a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, at least one keyword for the image from the CRM content and extracting the obtained keyword as a tag.
The claim further describes how the models have been previously trained prior to their accessing and execution as part of the method by utilizing “wherein” clauses (or equivalent): wherein, the BERT model is trained by assigning a higher weight to a predetermined number of tokens that sequentially follow an image in the CRM content than to remaining tokens
“Wherein” clauses and their equivalents are discussed in MPEP 2111.04: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) ‘adapted to' or ‘adapted for' clauses; (B) ‘wherein' clauses; and (C) ‘whereby' clauses.” In the instant case, the “wherein” clauses indicated above that describe how the models have previously been trained prior to their accessing and execution by the positively recited steps do not limit the claim to a particular structure, nor do they indicate that such training steps are positively performed within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of the claim will be considered to include (1) accessing and executing a BERT model that has been trained in any manner to perform the recited function of extracting, by a processor, a tag for an image included in the CRM content; (2) automatically loading into memory a BERT model that has been trained in any manner to extract a tag for an image included in the CRM content; and (3) extracting a tag for an image included in the CRM content via a BERT model that has been trained in any manner to extract at least one keyword for an image as a tag.
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 1-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4, 8-11 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
generating customer relationship management (CRM) content including text and one or more image in association with a medical institution client assigned to a hospital or a physician;
extracting a tag for an image included in the CRM content, wherein extracting comprises obtaining at least one keyword for the image from the CRM content and extracting the obtained keyword as a tag; and
in response to a selection of a recipient and CRM content to be provided, providing the selected CRM content to the recipient,
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Generating customer relationship management (CRM) content for a medical institution client which includes text and one or more images, extracting a tag for an image included in the CRM content by obtaining a keyword for the image as a tag, and providing the selected CRM content to a recipient are personal behaviors that may be performed by healthcare providers/administrators.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a computer-implemented method
a first interface as implementing the step of generating customer relationship management (CRM) content including text and one or more image in association with a medical institution client assigned to a hospital or a physician;
a processor as implementing the step of extracting a tag for an image included in the CRM content
a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, wherein, the BERT model is trained by assigning a higher weight to a predetermined number of tokens that sequentially follow an image in the CRM content than to remaining tokens as implementing the step of extracting at least one keyword for the image from the CRM content and extracting the obtained keyword as a tag
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding “computer-implemented” method, this is understood to be a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity per specification page 5 lines 16-27 – an electronic device which may include a smartphone, PC, mobile phone, desktop PC, laptop PC, etc.
Regarding the first interface, this is understood to be implemented by the general purpose computing device of specification page 5 lines 16-27 – an electronic device which may include a smartphone, PC, mobile phone, desktop PC, laptop PC, etc. No particulars of the interface are provided.
Regarding the processor, no particulars are provided. Per page 9 lines 11-14 (electronic device including at least one processor) and page 5 lines 16-27 (electronic device may be one of various devices such as a smartphone, laptop, desktop PC, etc.) and per page 28 line 30-page 29 line 12, this is understood to be a general purpose processor of a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the BERT model, this is understood to be a well-known model being used in its ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea (specification page 19, lines 8-15 disclose “Various models may be used to extract keywords that serve as tags from images and/or feed content; however, according to one embodiment, the processor 120 of the device 100 uses Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). BERT is a transformer-based machine learning technique developed by Google in 2018 for natural language processing. Its key feature is the ability to understand context by learning sentence structure bidirectionally. This characteristic has been found to be well-suited for use with medical images and medical illustrations according to embodiments”). Therefore, recitation of the BERT model only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer using a known algorithm.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 also recites
storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit
This only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the function of storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of generating CRM content and providing selected CRM content to a recipient, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
These elements in Sections A and B above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the step of storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit only amounts to insignificant application of the abstract idea.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The step of storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit only amounts to storing/retrieving information in memory, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Claim 2 recites limitations pertaining to providing a second interface that is linked with the first interface and configured to provide a function of searching for and selecting an image to be inserted into the CRM content, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via general purpose computing components. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites limitations pertaining to wherein results provided by the image search are filtered based on at least one piece of tag information associated with the image, which only serves to narrow the scope of the abstract idea as set out above. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites limitations pertaining to providing a third interface that is distinguished from the second interface and configured to receive a request to create a new image, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via general purpose computing components. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites limitations pertaining to providing identification information of a patient who has received treatment at the end of treatment and receiving a selection as to whether to transmit the CRM content to the patient, which falls within the scope of the abstract idea, as providing patient identification and receiving a selection to provide CRM content to a patient are personal behaviors that may be performed by healthcare providers/administrators. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the CRM content includes a link for requesting remote treatment, and when the link is selected, a remote treatment request process is initiated, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via general purpose computing components. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites limitations pertaining to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 1, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via general purpose computing components. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites limitations pertaining to an electronic device comprising: a processor; a communication interface operatively coupled to the processor and configured to provide communication between a medical institution client and a terminal of a recipient; and a storage unit storing customer relationship management (CRM) content, wherein the processor is configured to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 1, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via general purpose computing components. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8-11 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements (e.g., processor, interface) only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8-11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-4, 8-11 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
Claim 1 is free of the prior art. Regarding the closest prior art:
Fiedler et. al. (US Publication 20180137932A1) teaches
providing a first interface configured to generate customer relationship management (CRM) content including text and one or more image in association with a medical institution client assigned to a hospital or a physician ([0149]-[0150] teach on providing patient education data content such as videos, articles, other information be viewed such as an “educational video” can be provided to patient; such information may be initiated by professionals and staff; per [0213] this is understood to include CRM components for use in a hospital setting for helping clients manage patient data throughout their relationship; patient education data content is mapped in the system); storing the generated CRM content in a storage unit ([0077], teaching on a virtual machine server configured to store various system and patient data including text and media content); and in response to a selection of a recipient and CRM content to be transmitted, transmitting the selected CRM content to the recipient ([0149]-[0150] teach on healthcare institute professionals initiating provision of educational patient data (CRM) content to patients; institution professionals can draw from multiple sources in putting the education together for each patient).
von Teachman et. al. (US Publication 20160148215A1) teaches on a dynamic contact management system, including CRM:
extracting, by a processor, a tag for an image included in the CRM content ([0010]-[0017] teach on parsing received datasets to identify and associate a tag with the datasets).
Wen et. al. (CN 113780350 A), which is directed to an image description method based on ViLBERT and BilSTM, broadly teaches on training a BERT model in which training image features are weighted (see Abstract, performing feature extraction processing to the image to be described and inputting to the image description model to process to obtain the image description information, wherein the image description model is obtained by the following pre-training process: obtaining the training image set and the corresponding image text information; extracting the feature of the training image set to obtain the image feature information processing the image text information by the text processing block to obtain the text feature information performing a combined attention layer processing to the image feature information and the text feature information respectively and then respectively by a weighting processing module to obtain the image feature after processing by a block processing and respectively weighting processing module),
Fiedler/von Teachman/Wen do not teach on the limitations pertaining to wherein extracting comprises obtaining, through a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, at least one keyword for the image from the CRM content and extracting the obtained keyword as a tag: and wherein, the BERT model is trained by assigning a higher weight to a predetermined number of tokens that sequentially follow an image in the CRM content than to remaining tokens.
A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination obvious when considered as a whole. Claims 2-4, 8-11 depend from Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4, 8-11 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20120246105A1, teaching on systems and methods for user customization of clinical data objects in a content-based clinical system
US Publication 20110087501A1, teaching on systems and methods for managing at-home medical prevention, recovery, and maintenance by identifying digital content related to a medical treatment plan and providing the content to a patient via a user interface
US Publication 20190325996A1, teaching on a client engagement and customer relationship management (crm) platform
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights