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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,332,856. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application are broader than the patented claims with the only other differences being minor grammatical differences. All of the limitations of the claims of the present Application are taught by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,332,856.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites “A method…” which is a series of steps and therefore a process. Claim 28 recites “One or more non-transitory computer storage media…” and is a manufacture. Claim 35 recites “A system…” and is therefore a machine.
Claims 21-40 recite limitations of:
detecting…
obtaining…
evaluating…
modifying…
triggering…
converting…
determining…
running…
Claims 21-40 recite the limitations of “detecting…”, “evaluating…”, “modifying…”, “triggering…”, “converting…”, and “determining…” which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more non-transitory computer storage media, one or more computers, or one or more storage devices; nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 21-40 recite the additional limitations of “obtaining…” which amounts to data gathering and is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media, one or more computers, and one or more storage devices are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic process performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “obtaining…” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 with an earliest effective filing date of 6/13/23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Truong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0125954 published on 4/23/20).
With respect to 21, the Truong reference teaches a method comprising:
detecting unstructured data included in one or more data files (unstructured data is received [paragraph 101]);
obtaining a set of rules for the detected unstructured data based on the detected unstructured data (a neural network is selected based on the analysis of the unstructured data [paragraphs 41 and 102-108]); and
in response to evaluating the detected unstructured data based on the set of rules, modifying the unstructured data using the set of rules (the selected neural network is applied to the unstructured data to obtain structured data [paragraph 109]).
With respect to 22, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. In addition, the Truong reference teaches triggering assessment code corresponding to the set of rules on the detected unstructured data to check whether the detected unstructured data satisfies the set of rules (the neural network selector uses a classifier to score the neural networks outputs for selecting a neural network [paragraph 62]).
With respect to 23, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Additionally, the Truong reference teaches converting the detected unstructured data into structured data (the unstructured data is converted to structured data [paragraph 109]) and triggering assessment code corresponding to the set of rules on the structured data to check whether the structured data satisfies the set of rules (the neural network selector uses a classifier to score the neural networks outputs for selecting a neural network [paragraph 62]).
With respect to 24, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. In addition, the Truong reference teaches determining a data quality score for the detected unstructured data in a data file of the one or more data files (the classifier evaluates the unstructured data [paragraphs 47 and 49]).
With respect to 25, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Additionally, the Truong reference teaches determining a data quality score that is a combined quality score based on data quality assessment for each rule included in the set of rules (the neural network selector uses a classifier to score the neural networks outputs for selecting a neural network [paragraph 62]).
With respect to 26, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. In addition, the Truong reference teaches performing natural language processing on metadata of the detected unstructured data to determine a context of the detected unstructured data, wherein the metadata comprises a data dictionary (the input is analyzed to classify it [paragraphs 79-82]) and determining the set of rules that are applicable to the detected unstructured data using the context of the detected unstructured data (the classification is used to select the neural network [paragraphs 102-108]).
With respect to 27, the Truong reference teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Additionally, the Truong reference teaches running a machine learning model to determine potential modifications for rectifying the detected unstructured data not satisfying one or more rules in the set of rules (the weight and activation function for a neural network can be reset to minimize a loss function [paragraphs 122-125]).
With respect to 28, the limitations of claim 28 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 21 and claim 28 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 28 are rejected in the analysis of claim 21 and claim 28 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 29, the limitations of claim 29 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 22 and claim 29 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 29 are rejected in the analysis of claim 22 and claim 29 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 30, the limitations of claim 30 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 23 and claim 30 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 30 are rejected in the analysis of claim 23 and claim 30 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 31, the limitations of claim 31 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 24 and claim 31 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 31 are rejected in the analysis of claim 24 and claim 31 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 32, the limitations of claim 32 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 25 and claim 32 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 32 are rejected in the analysis of claim 25 and claim 32 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 33, the limitations of claim 33 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 26 and claim 33 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 33 are rejected in the analysis of claim 26 and claim 33 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 34, the limitations of claim 34 are merely the non-transitory computer storage media embodiment of claim 27 and claim 34 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 34 are rejected in the analysis of claim 27 and claim 34 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 35, the limitations of claim 35 are merely the system embodiment of claim 21 and claim 35 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 35 are rejected in the analysis of claim 21 and claim 35 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 36, the limitations of claim 36 are merely the system embodiment of claim 22 and claim 36 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 36 are rejected in the analysis of claim 22 and claim 36 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 37, the limitations of claim 37 are merely the system embodiment of claim 23 and claim 37 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 37 are rejected in the analysis of claim 23 and claim 37 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 38, the limitations of claim 38 are merely the system embodiment of claim 24 and claim 38 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 38 are rejected in the analysis of claim 24 and claim 38 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 39, the limitations of claim 39 are merely the system embodiment of claim 25 and claim 39 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 39 are rejected in the analysis of claim 25 and claim 39 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to 40, the limitations of claim 40 are merely the system embodiment of claim 26 and claim 40 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 40 are rejected in the analysis of claim 26 and claim 40 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baum et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0398624
Some embodiments of the present disclosure disclose methods and systems for automated intake of patient data, and more specifically, for generating structured database of patients and real-time identification of health care providers for the patients based on the received real-time patient data. A patient intake server may receive from a patient intake device, a patient intake data including unstructured patient intake data related to personal or medical information of the patient. The patient intake server may select an engine configured to process the unstructured patient intake data to convert the unstructured patient intake data into a structured patient intake data. In some embodiments, the patient intake server may identify one or more health care providers qualified to provide the medical care to the patient based on an analysis of the structured patient intake data.
Jacobsen et al. U.S. Publication No. 2005/0154692
A predictive modeling system and methodology makes predictions using unstructured content as an input, either alone or in conjunction with structured content. Content transformation rules are selected for application to the unstructured content, such as emails, call center notes, and other forms of human communication, by identifying the rules that are likely to improve the performance of a predictive modeling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights