DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 4 May, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, 8, 11, 13 and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 – 32 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 May, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The following rejection is formatted in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites:
A system for data process, comprising:
an operating platform for storing and reading a plurality of data units;
a data processing module, signally connected to the operating platform; and
a display device signally connected to the data processing module, the operating platform having a graphical user interface signally connected to the display device,
wherein the plurality of data units includes at least one structured data unit and at least one unstructured data unit;
wherein the data processing module is configured to label and process the at least one unstructured data unit into a first processed structured data unit and to generate a first data correlation relationship between the first processed structured processed data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit,
the data processing module is further configured to re-label the at least one structured data unit into a second processed structured data unit and to generate a second data correlation relationship between the second processed structured data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit,
the data processing module is further configured to generate data correlation relationships via processing of at least one of data set, classification, clustering, data attribute, arithmetic unit, tagged value and co-occurrence conditions of at least the first and second processed structured data units, and
the data processing module is further configured to generate a visualization diagram signally connected to be presented on the display device via the graphical user interface in response to at least the first and second data correlation relationships, and
wherein the visual diagram is configured to graphically display at least the first and second data correlation relationships.
Claim 29 recites a method having similar limitations to those recited in Claim 1, in narrative form – i.e. labelling, storing and processing to generate a visualization.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 - 32 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept – i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to a system and a method, which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea including:
label and process the at least one unstructured data unit into a first processed structured data unit and to generate a first data correlation relationship between the first processed structured processed data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit,
re-label the at least one structured data unit into a second processed structured data unit and to generate a second data correlation relationship between the second processed structured data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit,
generate data correlation relationships via processing of at least one of data set, classification, clustering, data attribute, arithmetic unit, tagged value and co-occurrence conditions of at least the first and second processed structured data units.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “mental processes” grouping – concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The specification discloses that a user manually labels and re-labels unstructured data, using the operating platform as a tool and manually assign correlation relationships. Manually labelling data units is a process that, except for generic computer implementation steps, can be performed in the human mind. Similarly, the specification discloses that a user manually creates a relationship between two data units by “clicking”. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the mental process grouping.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping –
behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The specification discloses that it is difficult for operators who perform NLP and analysis on diverse data found in the medical field. Providing a platform for manually labelling and re-labelling and correlating data units is process that merely organizes this human activity. This type of activity, i.e. labelling medical data, includes conduct that would normally occur when analyzing patient data, even according to the specification. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
an operating platform for storing and reading a plurality of data units;
a data processing module, signally connected to the operating platform; and
a display device signally connected to the data processing module, the operating platform having a graphical user interface signally connected to the display device,
wherein the plurality of data units includes at least one structured data unit and at least one unstructured data unit;
generate a visualization diagram signally connected to be presented on the display device via the graphical user interface in response to at least the first and second data correlation relationships, and wherein the visual diagram is configured to graphically display at least the first and second data correlation relationships.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with considerations found in MPEP. (see MPEP 2106.05).
The operating platform and data processing module, signally connected to the operating platform and a display device signally connected to the data processing module, the operating platform having a graphical user interface signally connected to the display device are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The recitation of “for storing and reading a data unit a plurality of data units; wherein at least one of the plurality of data units is structured or unstructured; merely denotes the intended use of the platform, since the storing and reading steps are not positively recited. Even if they were positively recited, storing and reading data units are extra-solution activities – i.e. a data gathering steps. Similarly, generating a visualization diagram signally connected to be presented on the display device via the graphical user interface in response to at least the first and second data correlation relationships, and wherein the visual diagram is configured to graphically display at least the first and second data correlation relationships; merely appends conventional activities known in the industry. For example, the specification discloses that the generated visualization may be transmitted to a display device for viewing by the user (0034). In particular, the specification discloses that the visualization is generated using “Matplotlib, Pyecharts, Plotly, Bokeh, Seaborn, Python- based visualization plug-ins, R language-based visualization plug-ins, or other database-based visualizations tools.” Using well-known visualization tools and plug-ins does not apply the abstract labelling process in a meaningful way beyond linking the exception to a particular technological environment. Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database or Internet. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a generic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract labelling process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract labelling process. Storing and reading a data unit is disclosed and claimed at a high level of generality indicating that they are well-known in the art. For example, storing data is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function – i.e. electronic recordkeeping as in Alice and Ultramercial. Similarly, retrieving information from memory is a routine and conventional computer function as in Versata and OIP Tech. Displaying the results of the abstract process using well-known and conventional visualization tools and plug-ins is a conventional computer process; and is an ancillary part of the abstract process itself as in Electric Power Group.
The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure (i.e. operating platform and data processing module, signally connected to the operating platform). Each of the above components are disclosed in the specification as being purely conventional and/or known in the industry. Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually.
The dependent claims add additional features including:
those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above such as:
further specifying both a structured and unstructured database (Claim 2);
further limiting the type of data unit (Claims 8 - 10);
further limiting the type of generating conditions (i.e. filtering) (Claim 12, 14, 15);
further limiting the data unit to a data value of a data attribute (Claim 13);
further limiting the type of time data (Claim 27);
those that recite additional abstract ideas such as:
determining whether to label based on the database type and labeling unstructured data (Claim 4);
editing generating conditions of the visualization (i.e. filtering); (Claim 11, 31);
generating project data set including an attribute for the visualization; screening data (Claim 17, 18, 32);
determining relevance (Claim 21, 22);
statistical or probability analysis techniques (Claim 26);
generating label editing patterns (Claim 28);
those that recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity or computer functions such as:
generating visualization diagrams according to visualization data set (Claim 4 - 5);
importing visualization data set and generating visualization diagrams (Claim 6);
a visualization module (Claim 7);
storing data (Claim 16);
using keys for attributes (Claim 19, 20, 30);
generate visualizations for patient data including co-occurrences (Claim 23 - 25);
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. These elements merely narrow the abstract idea, recite additional abstract ideas, or append conventional activity to the abstract process. As such, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 10 and 17 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung et al.: (US PGPUB 2011/0078145 A1).
CLAIM 1
Chung discloses an automated patient medical data identification and categorization system and method that includes the following limitations:
A system for data process, comprising: an operating platform for storing and reading a plurality of data units; a data processing module, signally connected to the operating platform; and a display device signally connected to the data processing module, the operating platform having a graphical user interface signally connected to the display device, (Chung 0010, 0023, 0025, 0037, 0052, 0053, Figure 4); and
wherein the plurality of data units includes at least one structured data unit and at least one unstructured data unit; (Chung 0006, 0007, 0010, 0030, 0051, Figure 1);
wherein the data processing module is configured to label and process at least one unstructured data unit into a first processed structured data unit and to generate a first data correlation relationship the first processed structured data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit; (Chung 0003, 0010, 0014 – 0020, 0023 - 0025, 0027, 0035, 0037, 0045, 0049);
the data processing module is further configured to re-label the at least one structured data unit into a second processed structured data unit and to generate a second data correlation relationship between the second processed structured data unit and at least one other processed structured data unit; (Chung 0026, 0050);
the data processing module is further configured to generate data correlation relationships via processing of at least one of data set, classification, clustering, data attribute, arithmetic unit, tagged value and co-occurrence conditions of at least the first and second processed structured data units; (Chung 0010, 0013 – 0015, 0024, 0035, 0037, 0047, 0049); and
the data processing module is further configured to generate a visualization diagram signally connected to be presented on the display device via the graphical user interface in response to at least the first and second data correlation relationships, and wherein the visual diagram is configured to graphically display at least the first and second data correlation relationships; (Chung 0003, 0010, 0023 - 0025, 0035, 0037, 0045, 0049).
Chung discloses an apparatus, which may be a computer including a processor, memory and display connected to a plurality of medical data sources via a wired or wireless network. The computer is configured to identify and assign a classification label, which may be subsequently edited, to individual parts of the medical information for a plurality of patients, where the medical information includes both structured and unstructured information in the patients’ EMRs. The computer groups parts of information based on similarity (i.e. a correlation relationship). The computer outputs the results for display on a graphical user interface.
CLAIM 29
Claim 29 recites similar features to those in Claim 1. For example, Claim 29 recites:
providing an operating platform for reading a plurality of data units, and an operating platform for storing and reading a plurality of data units,
wherein at least one of the plurality of data units has a structured or unstructured data format;
labeling and processing the plurality of data units so as to generate a data correlation relationship between at least first and second data units from the plurality of data units;
generating a visualization diagram in response to the data correlation relationship between the at least first and second data units;
outputting the visual diagram on a display to graphically show the data correlation relationship between the at least first and second data units.
These limitations are similar to those in Claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same reasoning. Claim 29 recites additional limitations not found in Claim 1 including:
generating via the operating platform a project data set for accessing at least one of including a plurality of data values; the project data set includes at least one data attribute; (Chung 0010, 0023, 0035, 0037, 0039, 0043);
processing via the data processing module at least one of the plurality of data units so as to determine a semantic labeling decision, and generate a labeled data unit, wherein the semantic labeling decision makes one of the plurality of data values correspond to the at least one data attribute; (Chung 0023, 0042);
storing via the data processing module the labelled data unit to the project data set; (Chung 0047).
Chung discloses setting data retrieval attributes for searching – i.e. generate a project data set; determines if data is structured or unstructured and needing data labels – i.e. determine a labeling decision; and stores results.
CLAIMS 2 and 4
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. Additionally, Chung discloses the following limitations:
a plurality of databases signally connected to the operating platform, the plurality of databases including at least an unstructured database and a structured database; wherein the unstructured database is configured to store a plurality of unstructured data units and the structured database is configured to store a plurality of structured data units; (Chung 0006, 0007, 0010, 0030, 0051 - 0053, Figure 1, Figure 4); and
wherein the data processing module is configured to at least one of re-label and process the plurality of structured data units and label and process the plurality of unstructured data units so as to generate a plurality of processed structured data units; wherein the data processing module is configured to generate a data correlation relationship between the plurality of processed structured data units stored in from the unstructured and structured databases via processing of at least one of data set, classification, clustering, data attribute, arithmetic unit, tagged value and co-occurrence conditions of the plurality of processed structured data units, (Chung 0003, 0010, 0014 – 0020, 0023 - 0027, 0035, 0037, 0045, 0049, 0050); and to
generate a visualization diagram signally connected to be presented on the display device via the graphical user interface in response to the data correlation relationship between the plurality of processed structured data units from the unstructured and structured databases; (Chung 0003, 0010, 0023 - 0025, 0035, 0037, 0045, 0049).
wherein the data processing module further configured to automatically label the unstructured data units from the plurality of data units stored in the unstructured database, and to process the plurality of data units; (Chung 0010, 0043).
Chung discloses databases that store structured and unstructured data connected to the computer and automatically labeling unstructured data. Structured data is simply retrieved using an indexed search, without the need for labeling. Results are displayed in a GUI.
CLAIMS 8 - 10
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 2. Additionally, Chung discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of databases include at least one database configured to store a plurality of data units comprising unstructured data, structured data, semi-structured data, or a combination thereof; (Chung 0006, 0007, 0010, 0030, 0051 - 0053, Figure 1, Figure 4);
wherein the structured data includes structured patient data, medication record, drug data, medicine data (pharmaceutical raw materials), doctor’s advice data, doctor’s data, equipment data, department data, hospitalization data, examination data, shift report, or a combination thereof; (Chung 0006, 0038, 0051);.
wherein the unstructured data includes unstructured texts, case history, doctor’s advice, patient data, medication record, medicine profile data, drug profile data, doctor’s data, equipment data, department data, hospitalization data, examination data, shift report, or a combination thereof; (Chung 0006, 0042).
Chung discloses unstructured and structured data, in particular relative to a patient.
CLAIMS 19, 20 and 30
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 1 and 29. With respect to the following limitations:
at least one of the plurality of the data units includes at least one data value; wherein the operating platform is further configured to determine at least one relationship key; wherein the relationship key corresponds to first and second ones of the plurality of data units; and wherein the data processing module further generates the visualization diagram according to the at least one relationship key; wherein the at least one relationship key corresponds to a data attribute of at least one data value of the first one of the plurality of data units and a data attribute of the at least one data value of the second one of the plurality of data units; wherein data processing module processes at least the data values of the first and second ones of the plurality of data units and generates the visualization diagram; (Chung 0037, 0042 – 0045).
Chung discloses determining relationships between data based on their relationship to a common data pattern – i.e. a relationship key. The pattern may be an attribute.
CLAIMS 21 and 22
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein each of the plurality of data units comprises a plurality of data values, and the data processing module determines for at least two of the plurality of data values at least one relevance determination; wherein the relevance determination comprises "greater than", "equal to", "less than", "not equal to", "greater than or equal to", "including", or "less than or equal to"; the data processing module further generates the visualization diagram according to the relevance determination; wherein when the at least two of the plurality of data values are corpus data, the relevance determination includes a logical operation judgment, a similar semantic judgment, or a combination thereof. (Chung 0042).
Chung discloses using a convolution operator to determine data relevance.
CLAIMS 23 and 24
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
a patient data set, including a plurality of data values; the data process module processes the patient data set to generate the visualization diagram; wherein any one of the plurality of data values corresponds to at least one data attribute, the data processing module generates the visualization diagram according to the plurality of data values and the data attribute; and wherein the visualization comprises representations of the at least one data attribute; (Chung Abstract, 0010)
wherein the at least one data attribute comprises a plurality of time data, a first data attribute, and a second data attribute; one of the plurality of data values corresponds to the first data attribute and one of the plurality of time data; another one of the plurality of data values corresponds to the second attribute and the one of the plurality of time data; wherein the data processing module generates a co-occurrence analysis result according to the one of the plurality of time data, the one of the plurality of data values, and the another one of the plurality of data values; the visualization diagram comprises a co-occurrence analysis result; (Chung 0037, 0040).
Chung discloses processing patient data to obtain visualizations including time related data to determine co-occurrences.
CLAIMS 25 - 27
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 24. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein an analysis module is signally connected to the operating platform; the analysis module being configured to process the co-occurrence analysis result, predict the patient data set, and generate a predicted result; wherein the co-occurrence analysis result further comprises a statistical analysis result, probability analysis result, or a combination thereof; (Chung 0010, 0040, 0042);.
wherein the plurality of time data comprises a time record of patient’s examination, a time record of patient’s examination report being made, a time record of patient’s visit a doctor, or a combination thereof; (Chung 0037).
Chung discloses an computer that processes co-occurrences based on time and date of medical records and documents to determine what data to obtain using various statistical techniques.
CLAIM 28
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
a labeling database and an unlabelling database; wherein the data processing module further comprises a labelled data expansion module; the operating platform is signally connected to the labeling database, the unlabeling database and the labelled data expansion module, the data processing module further comprises a labeling pattern editing interface, the labeling pattern editing interface being configured for inputting data units and performing editing operation to generate at least one confirmation labeling pattern; wherein the labelled data expansion module is configured to generate at least one added labeling data unit according to the at least one confirmation labeling pattern and the unlabeling database, and to restore the at least one added labeling data unit to the labeling database; wherein the data processing module is further configured for processing the added labelled data unit, and generating a visualization diagram; (Chung 0039 - 0042).
Chung discloses that the user enters or edits concepts or labels to search for and the system suggests or predicts additional labels – i.e. a data expansion module
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 – 7, 11 – 18, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al.: (US PGPUB 2011/0078145 A1) in view of Official Notice.
CLAIMS 5 - 7
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the data processing module is further configured to generate a visualizable data set in response to processing the plurality of data units and to generate the visualization diagram based on the visualizable data set;
wherein the operating platform is signally connected to import the plurality of data units so as to form a visualizable data set, the data processing module being configured to process the imported visualizable data set and to generate the visualization diagram according to the imported visualizable data set;
a visualizing module signally connect to the operating platform and the data processing module; wherein the visualizing module generates the visualization diagram according to the visualizable data set.
Chung discloses labelling unstructured data and outputting the results on a GUI that is “browsable, editable and processable via the GUI.” (Chung 0023 – 0026, 0050) A GUI that can be browsed and edited inherently includes generating the visualization diagram according to a visualization data set that can be imported. For example, an HTML file represents a visualization data set that can be imported to generate the visualization. Examiner notes that the specification discloses that the visualization is generated using well-known tools and plug-ins having the features recited above. (0042 as published). Nonetheless, even if Chung does not fairly disclose the recited visualization features, Examiner takes Official Notice that the well-known visualization tools and plug-ins contain these features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the labelling system of Chung so as to have included all of the features inherent to the well-known visualization tools and plug-ins, in accordance with the Official Notice taken, in order to allow for creating “static, animated, and interactive visualizations”.
CLAIMS 11, 12, 15, 16, 31 and 32
Chung discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 1 and 29. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the graphical user interface of the operating platform comprises a visualization diagram editing interface used to configure the generating conditions of the visualization diagram and decide a diagram generating condition; and wherein the data processing module processes the at least one of the first and second data correlation relationships and generates the visualization diagram according to the diagram generating condition;
the diagram generating condition comprises displayed field condition, data screening condition, diagram type, or a combination thereof;
wherein the diagram generating condition comprises: a diagram category, having: data list, data table, basic frequency table, percentage table, co-occurrence matrix, co-occurrence list, population distribution, bar graph, line graph, table, pie graph, histogram, statistical graph, scatter graph, bubble graph, surface graph, radar graph, horizontal bar graph, timeline, organ/ body tissue chart, or a combination thereof;
further comprising: a historical data module signally connected to the data processing module and the operating platform for storing the diagram generating condition, the visualization diagram, or any combination thereof.
Chung discloses labelling unstructured data and outputting the results on a GUI that is “browsable, editable and processable via the GUI.” (Chung 0023 – 0026, 0050) Nonetheless, Chung does not expressly disclose the recited visualization features. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the well-known visualization tools and plug-ins contain these features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the labelling system of Chung so as to have included all of the features inherent to the well-known visualization tools and plug-ins, in accordance with the Official Notice taken, in order to allow for creating “static, animated, and interactive visualizations”.
CLAIMS 13 - 14
The combination of Chung/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 11. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the at least one of the plurality of data units comprises a data value, corresponding to at least one data attribute of the at least one of the plurality of data units; (Chung 0010, 0035 – 0043);
a data screening condition, having: data set condition, classification and clustering condition, data attribute condition, arithmetic unit condition, tagged value condition, or any combination thereof, wherein the data processing module screens the data value according to the diagram generating condition, and processes the data value after being screened to generate the visualization diagram; (Chung 0010, 0035 – 0043).
Chung discloses visualizing data having a particular attribute and screening (i.e. filtering) data according to various conditions set by the user.
CLAIMS 17 and 18
The combination of Chung/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 13. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the at least one of the plurality of data units comprises at least one data value; wherein the operating platform is used to generate a project data set, including at least one project data attribute; and wherein the operating platform is configured to determine whether the at least one project data attribute corresponds to at least one data attribute of the at least one data value; and the data processing module generates the visualization diagram according to the project data set;
wherein the project data set comprises: a plurality of project data attributes, the at least one data unit including a plurality of data values; wherein the operating platform is configured to determine whether one of the plurality of project data attributes corresponds to the at least one data attribute of at least one of the plurality data values; or more than one of the plurality of data attributes correspond to the at least one data attribute of one or more of the plurality of data values.
Chung discloses creating data sets by specifying a source and a data pattern that is related to a concept to be queried in the data source, including a subset of data (i.e. a project data set) based on time, date, document type, or any other available attribute. (Chung 0010, 0035 – 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Applicant asserts that the claims are “not merely an abstract idea”, but “embodies eligible subject matter.” (Remarks @ 12). Applicant asserts that the claims “embodies an improvement in the functioning of a computer with respect to the computer processing and labeling a plurality of data units so as to generate a data correlation relationship between” data units, and “an improvement over current technology” in “not only processes and labels a plurality of data units, but also generates a data correlation relationship”. (Remarks @ 13). However, relying on “labelling and processing data and correlating” merely asserts, at best, an improved abstract process, not an improved computer or other technology. Part of the difficulty is that the Applicant does not explain, and the Examiner is unable to discern, what the technological improvement is.
For similar reasons, Applicant asserts a practical application – a database of patient data that allows a user to combine structured and unstructured data. However, manipulating data is abstract in itself; and manipulating data by labelling and identifying correlation relationships using a manual process, is abstract. These are not additional features to be considered as a practical application.
The U.S.C. §112 Rejection
Applicant’s amended claims overcome the rejection.
The U.S.C. §103 Rejection
Applicant asserts that Chung et al. fails to teach “the structure and operation for labeling and processing the plurality of data units so as to generate a data correlation relationship, generating and outputting a visualization diagram”. Examiner disagrees. Chung expressly teaches a system comprising a processor, memory and display that “assigns a classification (i.e. a label) to individual parts of the information based on a relationship with a data pattern, such as a keyword, and outputs the classified information. A relationship with a data pattern is a data correlation relationship found in both structured and unstructured data elements (Chung 0043).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2009/0299977 A1 to Rosales discloses a automatic labelling of unstructured data from medical records and generating associations between a data patterns and findings.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 10 September, 2025