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
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, and 20 are in independent form.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
The claim(s) recite(s) asynchronous data sharing in computing infrastructures.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claim 1 directed to a system including a memory, and a processor, which are directed to one of the four statutory subject matters.
Independent claim 20 is directed to a method, which is a process.
Independent All other claims depend on claims 1, 18 and 19. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, and 20:
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception), the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite:
“reading legacy data from and writing legacy data to a plurality of disparate information systems” the limitation as drafted recites mental process involving information management system and data handling (collecting and exchanging information).
“transforming and processing legacy data using a common universal data record (UDR) format” the limitation as drafted recites a Mental process, involving categorization and organization of information (organizing and standardizing information into a common format),
“overlay case-specific graphical information onto the primary interactive diagram” the limitation as drafted recites a methods of organizing human activity, involving overlaying information based on graphical information.
These limitations correspond to concepts involving observation, evaluation, organization, recording and communication of information, which falls under mental process/methods of organizing human activity category of abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)).
Nothing in the claim requires a new hardware structure, improved storage technique, or any specific technological improvement.
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims are generic computer components preforming their routine functions. The claims include:
“a memory; and a processor” as drafted recites generic computing components, performing their ordinary functions of processing (computer as a tool to perform abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
“a data handling service for reading legacy data from and writing legacy data to a plurality of disparate information systems” as drafted recites a generic data processing, retrieval, and transmission operations using conventional computer functionality, amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
“transforming and processing legacy data using a common universal data record (UDR) format” as drafted recites generic data formatting and processing operations without reciting any specific technological mechanism for improving computer functionality, interoperability, or database technology.
“a universal display interface (UDI) service” as drafted recites generic user interface components for displaying information, which constitute insignificant post solution activity involving presentation of information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“overlay case-specific graphical information onto the primary interactive diagram” as drafted recites displaying organized information without graphical rendering technology or interface technology itself.
“a collaboration service configured to: create active capture recordings” as drafted recites generic recoding and capturing functionality performed using conventional computer components.
“share active capture recordings with other remote clients in a secure collaboration interface” as drafted recited generic communication and information sharing functionality using conventional networking technology.
The additional elements mentioned above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more that:
Generic computing components performing generic functions/processing;
Insignificant extra solution activity, including data gathering, recoding, display, and sharing information; and
Presenting and organizing information.
The claims do not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or network;
Improve database technology;
Improve GUI technology;
Provide a specific technical solution for integrating disparate systems; or
Recite a particular technological mechanism for collaboration or synchronization.
The claims merely use computing components used as tools to implements the abstract idea of organizing, transforming, displaying, recoding, and sharing information among user systems.
The recited components perform their generic/ordinary, expected functions, which is considered insufficient. These claims are merely functional software components performing generic task. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited components are merely generic computer/database elements performing their routine, well-understood, and conventional functions. See Alive, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The steps mentioned in the independent claims merely provide conventional techniques, architecture, or computing components (generic processor; generic database; a graph representation of data). The steps in the claims are a routine and conventional.
The claims recite only, without significantly more, listing specific signals and external signals are result oriented and functional (without technical implementation), no practical algorithm, signal generation technique, or ranking mechanism. All are routine, conventional operations business/ market place logic.
Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, (Generic Data Access/Formatting Infrastructure),
The claim recites:
utilizes robotic process automation interaction with user interfaces of disparate information systems (claim 2),
Use of APIs (claim 3)
disparate information systems utilize different commands (claim 4)
agnostic file type in the UDR format (claim 5)
system agnostic naming convention (claim 6).
This merely refine: accessing information from multiple systems; standardizing and organizing information; formatting and naming data consistently; and interfacing with existing software systems. These are considered: Mental Process (categorizing and standardizing information) and generic computer implementation of data conversation and exchange.
There is no technical mechanism provide for: how interoperability is technically achieved, how APIs or robotic process automations improve computer functionality, or how the file structures or naming conventions improve computing technology. The claims simply invoke genetic software tools and interface to organize and exchange information.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 7-10, and 18-19, (Dental Information Presentation/Visualization),
The claim recites:
dental image data and dental text data (claim 7)
generic chart of a set of teeth (claim 8)
overlay depicts patient specific dental work (claim 9)
media file viewer for viewing dental images (claim 10)
generic periodontic chart of a set of teeth (claim 18)
overlay patient specific periodontic information (claim 19).
This merely refine: displaying medical or dental information; visually organizing patient specific information, overlaying information onto graphical structures. These are considered: Mental Process (evaluation and presentation of information) and generic GUI implementation of.
There is no technical mechanism provide for: how graphical rendering is technologically improved, how image processing is improved, or how the interface improves computer functionality. The claims simply use generic GUI to display organized patient information.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 11-14, (Notes/AI Language Processing),
The claim recites:
notes interface for viewing and creating patient specific notes (claim 11)
AI transcription enhancement and storage of NL inputs (claim 12)
generative AI enhancement service that processes natural language inputs (claim 13)
generative AI enhancement service converts natural language inputs into formatted medical notes (claim 14).
This merely refine: collecting and processing language information; transcribing spoken or written information; converting information into formatted notes. These are considered: Mental Process (interpretation, analysis, language organization).
There is no technical mechanism provide for: How AI mode operates; how NLP is technically improved, how the generative AI architecture improves computing functionality. The claims simply invoke AI functionally as a tool to analyze and organize information.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 15-17, (Collaboration/Communication Features),
The claim recites:
collaboration interface for sharing messages between users (claim 15)
sending and displaying active capture recordings (claim 16)
annotation tools for annotating displays within the UDI (claim 17).
This merely refine: communication between users, sharing information and recordings, annotating displayed information. These are considered: Mental Process (evaluating and annotating information), and certain methods of organizing human activity (collaboration and communication).
There is no technical mechanism provide for: How collab technology has improved; how synchronization or communication is technologically enhanced, how annotation processing improves computer functionality. The claims simply use generic computing technology as a tool for communication and collaboration.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, Jr.; Russell William et al. (US 8825716 B2) [Martin] in view of COCHEU; THEODORE CLARKE et al. (US 20110125847 A1) [Cocheu].
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Martin discloses, a system (Fig.1 100; Column 12; Lns 10-15; Business Intelligence System; Col 9; Lns 30-40; Computer system), comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Col 9; Lns 50-60; a processing unit, a system memory) and configured to provide a data collaboration infrastructure (Col 12; Lns 10-35; Collaboration capabilities is provided by the business intelligence system) having:
a data handling service for reading legacy data from (Fig. 1; 112 Structured data sources, 114 Unstructured data sources, 100, 132. 134; Col 12; Lns 10-30; the business intelligence system let a user to access information from disparate sources, gather information from disparate data sources; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system retrieves and receives information regarding the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services) and writing legacy data to a plurality of disparate information systems (Col 6; I ans 40-55 and I ns 60-67; allows user to comment such as writing to add the knowledge; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system processes the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services;) and for transforming and processing legacy data using a common universal data record (UDR) format (Fig 4; UDM Modeling Logic 408; 416 Information Storage which includes UDM Construct 412, UDM Transformed data 414, Fig 6, 600-606; Transform raw data to UDM formatted data);
a universal display interface (UDI) service configured to: display a UDI at remote clients (Fig. 1; 132, 134, Fig.4: 430, 432; Col 3; Lns 60-67; Universal Data Model provides Business Intelligence customers to allow; Col 15; Lns 45- 65 multiple users can access the business intelligence system via the clients 132, 134; Fig.4; 432 clients. 408; UDM Modeling logic), wherein the UDI includes a primary interactive diagram; and overlay case-specific graphical information onto the primary interactive diagram (Col 6; Lns 43-55; the prescater is able to change reports in a live presentation, the other user is able to comment on the data or add other knowledge to the data; Col 7; Lns 15- 67 and Col 8; Los 1-5; the system allows the user to leave comments or annotate analyses and then share it to the data partners; Col 14; Lns 40-45; analyzed data includes market reports, national news, weather forecasts, stock market, political information), wherein the graphical information is rendered from data obtained from at least one disparate information system (Col 12; Lns 10-40; the business intelligence system allows user to consolidate, access, analyze disparate sources and type of data; gather information from disparate data sources, present analysis, provides collaboration capabilities between users and organizations) and
share data with other remote clients in a secure collaboration interface within the UDI (Fig.4; 408, 416, 414, 420, 428, 430, 432; Col 6; Lns 50-67; the analyzed data can be shared via secure collaboration please see Col 5; Lns 29-45; collaboration unit facilitates the sharing analysis of information privately).
However, Matrin does not explicitly facilitate a collaboration service configured to: create active capture recordings from within the UDI at the remote clients, wherein the active capture recordings include screen activity, audio, and video footage; and share active capture recordings with other remote clients in a secure collaboration interface within the UDL.
Cocheu discloses, a collaboration service configured to: create active capture recordings from within the UDI at the remote clients (abstract; Fig. 1; Fig. Fig.3; 300, 302, 304, 306, paragraph [0008]; universal media convertor, universal media format, universal media aggregator, paragraph [0010]; different type of collaboration events; paragraph [0027]; UMA is the core architecture that supports all the processing requests for UMC media archive extractions, media archive conversions, UMF generation, playback of UMF recorded conferences, presentation, meetings; paragraph [0030] and [0031]: viewer components are used in the rendering of graphical user interfaces; provides access to the user via a web service interfaces; during recorded presentation, conference, collaboration meeting, recorded phone conversation, recorded teleconferences from UMF is processed by Collaboration event),
wherein the active capture recordings include screen activity, audio, and video footage; and share active capture recordings with other remote clients in a collaboration interface within the UDI (paragraph [0031]; during recorded presentation, conference, collaboration meeting, recorded phone conversation, recorded teleconferences from UMF is processed by Collaboration event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Martin with capturing recording video with universal data format during collaboration of Cocheu for the purpose of easily adapted to handle a wide range of other new types of event (paragraph [0031)].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, reading legacy data from (Martin: Fig. 1; 112 Structured data sources, 114 Unstructured data sources, 100, 132, 134; Col 12; Lns 10-30; the business intelligence system let a user to access information from disparate sources, gather information from disparate data sources; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system retrieves and receives information regarding the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services) and writing legacy data to the plurality of disparate information systems (Martin: Col 6; Lns 40-55 and Lns 60-67; allows user to comment such as writing to add the knowledge; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system processes the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services) utilizes robotic process automation to interact with user interfaces of the plurality of disparate information systems (Martin: Fig.4, Data Source having Structure X 402, Data source having structure Y 404, Clients 432, User interface 428, Col 8; Lns 1-20; API to global vendors to use analyzes to make automated (i.e. robotic process automation).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, reading legacy data from (Martin: Fig. 112 Structured data sources, 114 Unstructured data sources, 100, 132, 134; Col 12; Lns 10-30; the business intelligence system let a user to access information from disparate sources, gather information from disparate data sources; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system retrieves and receives information regarding the website history data (i.c. legacy data) from external data services) and writing legacy data to the plurality of disparate information systems (Martin: Col 6; Lns 40-55 and Lns 60-67; allows user to comment such as writing to add the knowledge; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system processes the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services) utilizes application programming interfaces (Martin: Col 14; Lns 50- 67; application programming interfaces; Col 21; Lns 50-60; the data can populate CRM system via an API automatically).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, plurality of disparate information systems utilize different commands and file systems to access and store data (Martin: the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, Fig.4; 402, 404, disparate data sources across diverse application with structured and unstructured data formats. With the ordinary skill in the art, it is obvious that disparate information systems uses their own commands and file system to access and store data).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, the UDR format includes a system agnostic file type for similar types of data (Martin: Col 15; Lns 20-32; the UDR format includes agnostic file type for similar data types).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, the UDR format further includes a system agnostic naming convention (Martin: Col 15; Lns 20-32; the UDR format includes data is stored in an agnostic fashion).
Claim(s) 7-11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Cocheu in view of Trosien; Andrew et al. (US 8930219 B2) [Trosien].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Martin and Cocheu discloses, the legacy data (Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system retrieves and receives information regarding the website history data (i.e. legacy data) from external data services).
However, neither Martin nor Cocheu facilitates dental image data and dental text data.
Trosien disclose, dental image data and dental text data (Fig.6; Col 3; Lns 50-55; dental image data and dental text data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the combination of Martin and Cocheu with collaborating dental treatment plan of Trosien for the purpose of checking treatment meets an efficiency guideline. (Col 2; Lns 15-25, Trosien).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, the primary interactive diagram includes a generic chart of a set of teeth (Trosien: Fig.6; Col 6; Lns 5-10; primary interactive diagram, Col 6; Lns 48-60; generic chart of a set of teeth).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, the overlay depicts patient specific dental work rendered on the set of teeth (Trosien: Fig.6; Clin Check overlay displays patient specific dental work presented on the set of teeth).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, disclose the UDI (Martin: Fig. 1; 132, 134, Fig.4; 430, 432; Col 3; Lns 60-67; Universal Data Model provides Business Intelligence customers to allow; Col 15; Lns 45- 65; multiple users can access the business intelligence system via the clients 132, 134; Fig.4; 432 clients, 408; UDM Modeling logic) further includes a media file viewer for viewing data (Martin: Col 6; Lns 43-55; the presenter is able to change reportsin a live presentation, the other user is able to comment on the data or add other knowledge to the data; Col 7; Lns 15- 67 and Col 8; Lns 1-5; the system allows the user to leave comments or annotate anal vses and then share it to the data partners; Col 14; Lns 40-45; analyzed data includes market reports, national news. weather forecasts, stock market, political information)
Trosien disclose, dental images of a selected patient (Fig.6; Col 6; Lns 5-10; primary interactive diagram, Col 6; Lns 48-60; generic chart of a set of teeth).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, the UDI further includes a notes interface for viewing and creating data (Fig.1; 132, 134, Fig.4; 430, 432; Col 3; Lns 60-67 Universal Data Model provides Business Intelligence customers to allow; Col 15; Lns 45- 65; multiple users can access the business intelligence system via the elients 132, 134; Fig.4; 432 clients, 408; UDM Modeling logic; Col 6; Lns 43-55; the presenter is able to change reports in a live presentation, the other user is able to comment on the data or add other knowledge to the data; Col 7; Los 15- 67 and Col 8: Lns 1-5; the system allows the user to leave comments or annotate analyses and then share it to the data partners; Col 14; Lns 40-45; analyzed data includes market reports, national news, weather forecasts, stock market, political information).
Trosien discloses, patient specific notes (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, the UDI further includes a secondary interactive diagram (Martin: Fig. 4; 408, 416, 412, 414, 428, 432, there are multiple clients, therefore collaboration includes secondary interactive diagram please see Col 5; Lns 29-35).
Trosien disclose, a generic periodontic chart of a set of teeth (Fig.6; chart of a set of teeth).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, the UDI service is configured to overlay information onto the secondary interactive diagram (Fig.4; 408, 416, 412, 414, 428, 430, Col 7; Lns 15-25; the system allows the users to annotate analyses) wherein the graphical information is rendered from data obtained from at least one disparate information system (Fig. 1: 112 Structured data sources, 114 Unstructured data sources, 100, 132, 134; Col 12; Lns 10-30; the business intelligence system let a user to access information from disparate sources, gather information from disparate data sources; Col 15; Lns 9-30; integration unit of the business intelligence system retrieves and receives information regarding the website history data (i.c. legacy data) from external data services).
Trosien discloses, patient specific periodontic information (Fig.6; chart of a set of teeth).
Claim(s) 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Cocheu in view of Trosien in view of Tang; Zilong et al. (US 11822373 B1) [Tang].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien discloses, a service configured to securely transcribe (Martin: Col 19; Lns 20-30; analytics unit is configured to process UDM transformed data by performing securitization) and store inputs within the notes interface (Martin: Col 6; Lns 55-67; ASP platform with analyses that can be shared, commented on and stored securely for users).
However, neither one of Martin, Cocheu or Trosien explicitly facilitates secure script artificial intelligence (S2AI) and store natural language input.
Tang discloses, secure script artificial intelligence (S2AI) and store natural language input (Col 1; Lns 39-40; enabling secure sharing data, Col 11; Lns 23-35; machine learning models include a model trained to perform natural language processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the combination of Martin, Cocheu and Trosien with the system of Tang for the purpose of implementing flexible, customizable transformation. (Col 1; Lns 39-45).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Martin, Cocheu, Trosien and Tang discloses, S2AI service includes a generative Al enhancement service that processes natural language inputs (Tang: Col 11; Lns 23-35; machine learning models include a model trained to perform natural language processing).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Martin, Cocheu, Trosien and Tang discloses, medical notes (Martin: Col 21; Lns 50-60; medical data).
Tang discloses, the generative Al enhancement service converts natural language inputs into formatted data (Col 11; Lns 23-50; machine learning models include a model trained to perform natural language processing and transform formatted data).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Martin, Cocheu, Trosien and Tang discloses, the collaboration interface includes a facility for a first user to create a collaboration with a second user, and a content window for viewing and sharing messages with the second user (Martin: Col 12; Lns 30-35; present analysis and provide collaboration capabilities between users and organization).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Martin, Cocheu, Trosien and Tang discloses, the content widow is configured to send and display active capture recordings (Cocheu: paragraph [0031]; during recorded presentation, conference, collaboration meeting, recorded phone conversation, recorded teleconferences from UMF is processed by Collaboration event).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Martin, Cocheu, Trosien and Tang discloses, the collaboration service includes annotation tools for annotating displays within the UDI (Martin: Fig. 4; 416, 412, 414, 428, 432, Col 7; Lns 15-25; the system allows users to annotate analyses and information results, elements).
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
5/26/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights