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 reply filed on 24 August 2026, the following changes have been made: claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended. Claims 4-5, 12, and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/158,706, Application No. 18/108, 615, and Application No. 18/215, 354 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claims 1 and 17 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “c) an input-receiving object for approving execution of the promoted follow-up recommendation”, “the multi-transformer model comprising a set of decoders.
each of the set of decoders structured to consult multiple encoders in parallel,” “upon receiving a single-input to the input-receiving object from a user of the interface, executing the promoted follow-up recommendation by providing computer-readable instructions that automatically generate an imaging order for a Radiology Information System (RIS)”, and “confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation for a patient upon interrogating the Radiology Information System (RIS).” Examiner cannot find disclosure of these limitations in the prior filed applications. For claims 2 and 18 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “the trained multi-transformer model comprises a large language model.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the trained multi-transformer model comprises a large language model in the prior filed applications. For claims 6 and 20 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “the interface reduces a number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users required to initiate execution of follow-up recommendations for a set of radiology reports by 75%.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the interface reducing a number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users required to initiate execution of follow-up recommendations for a set of radiology reports by 75% in the prior filed applications. For claim 7 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “executing the promoted follow-up recommendation and confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation comprises controlling information flow through the RIS.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of executing the promoted follow-up recommendation and confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation comprises controlling information flow through the RIS in the prior filed applications. For claim 11 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “reducing the backlog by at least 50% within 4 days, upon receiving a set of single-inputs for executing a subset of the set of promoted follow-up recommendations, at the interface.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of reducing the backlog by at least 50% within 4 days, upon receiving a set of single-inputs for executing a subset of the set of promoted follow-up recommendations, at the interface in the prior filed applications. For claim 15 the prior-filed applications do not provide support for “the finding summary comprises a categorization and a subcategorization of a finding of the radiology report.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the finding summary comprises a categorization and a subcategorization of a finding of the radiology report in the prior filed applications. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-19 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-15) and system (claims 17-19).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recite steps of
Increasing efficiency of a system used to execute follow-up actions and process
radiology report backlogs by providing an interface for single-input approval of a clinical follow-up recommendation, upon:
generating a trained multi-transformer model upon training, with a
computing subsystem remote from the PACS, a multi-transformer model with
training data from reports from a set of institutions and involving a set of
actionable findings, the multi-transformer model comprising a set of decoders.
each of the set of decoders structured to consult multiple encoders in parallel.
and wherein the multi-transformer model implements a parallelization
architecture that does not require processing of data in any order;
receiving a radiology report associated with a set of radiology images from a patient of an institution, from a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS);
processing the radiology report with the trained multi-transformer model to determine a set of classifications;
at the interface, returning: a) a finding summary for the radiology report, from the trained multi-transformer model, b) a set of follow-up recommendations comprising a promoted follow-up recommendation from the trained multi-transformer model, and c) an input-receiving object for approving execution of the promoted follow-up recommendation;
upon receiving a single-input to the input-receiving object from a user of the interface, executing the promoted follow-up recommendation by providing computer-readable instructions that automatically generate an imaging order for a Radiology Information System (RIS), the imaging order changing a status of the RIS; and
confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation for a patient upon interrogating the Radiology Information System (RIS) for the status changed by the imaging order and updating the interface in response to the confirming.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a non-transitory medium, and additional limitation such as “wherein the system comprises improved efficiency characterized by performance
equivalent to a reduction in a number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users
required to execute follow-up recommendations by 75%” which has been treated as a part of the abstract idea.
These steps for the determination of radiology recommendations and initiation of follow-up actions, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through organizing the activity around automation of a clinical process and administrative workflow as it pertains to radiology recommendations and initiation of follow-up actions. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 17, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of providing an interface; generating a trained multi-transformer model upon training, with a computing subsystem remote from the PACS, a multi-transformer model […] the multi-transformer model comprising a set of decoders, each of the set of decoders structured to consult multiple encoders in parallel, and wherein the multi-transformer model implements a parallelization architecture that does not require processing of data in any order; with the trained multi-transformer model; updating the interface in response to the confirming; a processing system; and, wherein the computing system comprises instructions stored in a non-transitory medium amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving a radiology report amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of from a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); by providing computer-readable instructions for a Radiology Information System (RIS); and, upon interrogating the Radiology Information System (RIS). As can be seen, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not make the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of 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 generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as providing an interface; updating the interface in response to the confirming; a processing system; and, wherein the computing system comprises instructions stored in a non-transitory medium, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); and, generating a trained multi-transformer model upon training, with a computing subsystem remote from the PACS, a multi-transformer model […] the multi-transformer model comprising a set of decoders, each of the set of decoders structured to consult multiple encoders in parallel, and wherein the multi-transformer model implements a parallelization architecture that does not require processing of data in any order; with the trained multi-transformer model, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f)
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving a radiology report; e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as recitation of from a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); by providing computer-readable instructions for a Radiology Information System (RIS); and, upon interrogating the Radiology Information System (RIS), e.g., simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., MPEP 2105.05(h)
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 generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-3 6-11, 13-16 and 18-19 reciting particular aspects for the determination of radiology recommendations and initiation of follow-up actions including
[Claims 2 & 18] wherein the trained multi-transformer model comprises a large language model;
[Claim 3] wherein the trained multi-transformer model comprises a non-large-language model;
[Claim 6] wherein the interface reduces a number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users required to initiate execution of follow-up recommendations for a set of radiology reports by 75%;
[Claim 7] wherein executing the promoted follow-up recommendation and confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation comprises controlling information flow through the RIS;
[Claim 8] wherein confirming completion of the promoted follow-up recommendation comprises receiving a notification, at the interface, that the promoted follow-up recommendation was completed at a second institution different from the institution, upon interrogating the patient using a natural language processing (NLP)-enhanced messaging tool, and transmitting the notification to be rendered at the interface;
[Claim 9] wherein the set of actionable findings comprises a finding associated with a Lung-RADS category, a cardiac condition, or a BI-RADS category;
[Claim 10] presenting an organized set of finding summaries paired with a set of promoted follow-up recommendations generated upon processing a backlog of radiology reports with the trained multi-transformer model, for the institution, at an initial interaction with the interface;
[Claim 11] reducing the backlog by at least 50% within 4 days, upon receiving a set of single-inputs for executing a subset of the set of promoted follow-up recommendations, at the interface;
[Claim 13] at the interface, determining that at least one of the set of classifications indicates a missed incidental finding that was missed by a radiologist generating the radiology report, the method further comprising through at least one of the RIS and the interface, returning the radiology report to a queue of the radiologist in response to the missed incidental finding;
[Claim 14] wherein the promoted follow-up recommendation comprises at least one of: a scan, a bloodwork order, and a specialist appointment;
[Claim 15] wherein the finding summary comprises a categorization and a subcategorization of a finding of the radiology report;
[Claim 16] wherein the set of classifications comprises at least one of a Lung-RADS category or a BI-RADS category;
[Claim 19] wherein the trained multi-transformer model implements parallelization architecture that does not require processing of data in any order;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 18-19 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2 and 18 (wherein the trained multi-transformer model comprises a large language model); claim 3 (wherein the trained multi-transformer model comprises a non-large-language model); claim 6 (the interface); claim 7 (through the RIS); claim 8 (at the interface; using a natural language processing (NLP)-enhanced messaging tool; and, be rendered at the interface); claim 10 (with the trained multi-transformer model; and with the interface); claim 11 (at the interface); claim 13 (at the interface; and, through at least one of the RIS and the interface); and claim 19 (wherein the trained multi-transformer model implements parallelization architecture that does not require processing of data in any order) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, claim 8 (receiving a notification; and, transmitting the notification) amounts to mere data gathering and output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving and transmitting actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). 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.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 6-7, 11, and 13 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2-3, 8, 10, and 18-19 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0074] which provides examples of off-the-shelf computer devices, [0071] which provides examples of off-the-shelf processors, and [0200] which provides examples of types of memory. Dependent claim 8 recites additional subject matter which amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes the judicial exception since it covers the entire field of assisted follow-up management in healthcare without requiring a uniquely novel AI architecture. The claim language itself does not describe a unique technical improvement to the multi-transformer model; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 24 August 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC priority, applicant states that they have amended the claims to overcome rejections rendering support for priority moot.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. Examiner points out that once a priority claim is challenged, the burden shifts to the applicant to point directly to specific paragraphs, figures, or line numbers to prove that the priority document provides proper disclosure under enablement and written description standards; applicant did not do so, Thus, applicant is not entitled to the priority dates.
Regarding the drawings, applicant has provided corrected drawing sheets. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections, applicant has provided corrected drawing sheets. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant asserts that the parallelization architecture claimed is not a mental process because it requires the manipulation of computer data structures. There is further no stage at which the encoder outputs could be consulted, in parallel, by a mental process and no scenario in which such processes could be practically performed by humans. Applicant cites the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo to argue the claimed inventions do not recite an abstract idea because the limitations recited could not be practically be performed by humans or be performed mentally
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts the claims were not rejected under mental process but still recite organizing human activity as it involves managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (i.e., organizing a clinical process and administrative workflow as it pertains to radiology recommendations and initiation of follow-up actions). The invention is clearly managing, streamlining, and governing how healthcare personnel perform tasks.
At its heart, the claimed system is managing a to-do list for clinical staff:
It takes a manual human task (i.e., reading a radiology report, deciding on a follow-up, ordering a new scan, and checking if it got done).
It structures a business/clinical workflow.
By reducing a complex human administrative chain into single-input approval, the claimed invention changes how humans cooperate and execute institutional tasks
The system acts as a logistical bridge between different human entities and software ecosystems:
It coordinates data from multiple institutions.
It translates data between separate human-facing systems like the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and the Radiology Information System (RIS).
It manages backlogs, which are implied to be human organizational problems (i.e., staff having too much work to process sequentially).
The final output is not a purely mathematical or physical transformation:
The output is an imaging order that changes the status in a database.
An order is an administrative directive for another human (i.e., a scheduler, a technician, or a nurse) to take action on a patient.
Examiner points to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. The MPEP is clear that the concept of managing orders, workflows, and personnel instructions is categorized as a method of organizing human activity. The computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. The present model claimed is a black box model with no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans analyze/process data. Examiner asserts that the August 4, 2025 Memo from the USPTO does not apply to the present invention as that memo was in regard to inventions that demonstrated improvements to AI technology and thus were AI-focused inventions; this is clearly not the case for the present invention. Similarly, the fact pattern for Ex parte Desjardins is different than the present case since it was directed to an invention that was providing an improvement to artificial intelligence; not true for the present case. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 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 OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted).
On pages 11 to 13 applicant asserts the claims integrate features into a practical application and improve the functioning of a computer/other technology. Applicant cites amended claim 17 which claims “reduction in a number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users required to execute follow-up recommendations by 75%.” Applicant asserts that the 75% performance attribute is attributed to the system architecture and improves existing technology, and that causing the RIS
device to adjust RIS operation and return statuses is a practical application since the RIS is not a generalized purpose-built computer. Applicant asserts that the presently amended claims are eligible in relation to USPTO Guidance and requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The amendments do not help advance prosecution under USC 101 since the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problems of unreliability and inconsistency of radiology workflows ([0005] to [0007] of specification) by automating a clinical process and administrative workflow as it pertains to radiology recommendations and initiation of follow-up actions. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problem solved by the applicant is not a technological problem. For instance, all the applicant is doing is applying known technology (i.e., PACS, RIS, transformer model, etc.) for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).
The examiner asserts the following facts that the applicant will not be able to dispute with supporting evidence:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
There is no nexus between what the applicant is arguing and what is in the claims and specification in that the operation of the RIS is not really being changed, it’s instead operating in its ordinary manner as it relates to changing a status. It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea by automation of human tasks. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology.
Claim 17 explicitly states the system results in 75% improved efficiency:
This metric does not describe a 75% increase in computer processing speed or a 75% reduction in electricity usage.
It describes a 75% increase in the speed or volume at which a hospital system and its human staff can clear backlogs (i.e., efficiency of a business workflow) and execute patient follow-ups.
Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims lack concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of multi-transformer model in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of multi-transformer, nor does the specification disclose any new multi-transformer technique. In fact, the applicant’s specification [0062] recognizes known multi-transformer models in the art. The alleged improvement of using the multi-transformer model lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the multi-transformer technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. Examiner further points out that improving efficiency (pg. 12 of the applicant’s arguments of record and claim 17) is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality as set forth by the courts in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application. The applicant has still not demonstrated that their invention is inventive; thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Lou, R., Lalevic, D., Chambers, C., Zafar, H. M., & Cook, T. S. (2020). Automated detection of radiology reports that require follow-up imaging using natural language processing feature engineering and machine learning classification. Journal of digital imaging, 33(1), 131-136.
This reference is relevant because is discloses using NLP and machine on radiology reports that require follow-up imaging.
US20230197276A1
This reference is relevant because it discloses using transformer models for a set of follow-up recommendations associated with a set of patients.
US20230343454A1
This reference is relevant because it discloses using transformer models for a set of follow-up recommendations associated with a set of patients.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights