DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 1/13/2026.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13, 16-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Sethy (US Patent Pub 2020/0004857), in view of Whittier et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0110525) and Davis (US Patent 6,920,608), further in view of Bocirnea (US Patent Pub 2012/0250956).
Claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Sethy (US Patent Pub 2020/0004857), in view of Whittier et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0110525), Davis (US Patent 6,920,608), and Bocirnea (US Patent Pub 2012/0250956), further in view of Gassner et al. (US Patent 10,902,081).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite the limitations “receiving … a manifest file associated with the first data, wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assigned a pause status indicator to the first data,” and (2) “after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing … based on the manifest file, the first data.”
Applicant cites to paras. 0088 and 0093-94 as support for these amended limitations. Indeed the cited paragraphs discuss pausing ingested first data if discrepancies are detected. In particular, para. 0088 discusses these features. These paragraphs discuss these features as occurring during the ingestion/receiving phase, which applies automated queries to detect discrepancies between received/ingested data and previously ingested data. As described in the cited paragraphs, the features seem to be a result of the ingested data being processed in some manner, such as transforming it into a standardized format. As currently recited, the processing of the ingested data is contingent on approval of the determined discrepancy. This feature is to “allow for resolution of data discrepancies that would prevent or otherwise harm or delay data exportation.” Spec at para. 0088. The issue is that the claims previously and currently recite “generating … a first query”. Based on the cited paragraphs, the “first query” and its functionality, seems to be the same as the new limitations noted above. Para. 0093 states “executing the change detection operations may comprise receiving data from one or more sources as previously disclosed. In particular, the data from the one or more sources may be ingested or otherwise received …”. It also states “[t]he changes may also be based on whether the received and stored data different from previous versions of the same data.” In other words, the queries are automatically performed when receiving data to detect discrepancies, notify the appropriate user, and once approved , continue processing the data. Thus, as amended, the claims seem to add steps that are inconsistent with what is described in the specification. For example, as claimed the process includes (1) ingesting data, (2) pause data if a discrepancy is discovered relative to previously ingested data, (3) once approved by a user, process the ingested data, (4) transform the data to standardized format and store it in a database, (5) generate a query to search the database, (6) determine a result comprising second data that fails to satisfy a criteria of the query, (7) receiving a user input, and (8) updating/reconciling the standardized first data based on the user input. As best understood by the Examiner, the specification describes the process including (1) ingesting data, (2) pause data if a discrepancy is discovered relative to previously ingested data, (3) once approved by a user, process the ingested data, (4) transform the data to standardized format and store it in a database, (5) searching the database to receive a result, identifying discrepancies (6) notifying the user of the identified discrepancy, (7) receiving user input, (8) updating or reconciling the standardized first data. This process is further shown at Fig. 14 of the application. As best understood by the Examiner, the process does not include two queries for discovering discrepancies wherein the first query must be approved before transforming and processing can be performed, as currently claimed. For at least these reasons, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite limitations that fail to meet the written description requirement. The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim. For the prior art rejections below, the new limitations are interpreted as being the same as the claimed “generated” first query, which identifies data not satisfying a criteria of the query.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13, 16-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Sethy (US Patent Pub 2020/0004857), in view of Whittier et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0110525) (Whittier) and Davis (US Patent 6,920,608), further in view of Bocirnea (US Patent Pub 2012/0250956).
In regards to claim 1, Kumar Sethy discloses a method of updating standardized first data based on an automatically generated notification, the method comprising:
a. receiving, at one or more servers, first data from one or more data sources, the first data including non-standardized data (Kumar Sethy at para. 0022)1;
c. processing, at the one or more servers, the first data, wherein the processing of the first data comprises transforming the first data into standardized first data (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0030-0031)2;
d. storing, at a database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data (Kumar Sethy at para. 0034)3;
g. determining that the standardized first data fails to satisfy at least one criteria based on at least one of a second parameter associated with the database, such as pre-defined criteria, data governance rules and business logic (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0031-32);
h. receiving, at the one or more servers and from a first computing device, a first user input (Kumar Sethy at para. 0026)4.
Kumar Sethy does not expressly disclose (1) wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assign a paused status indicator to the first data and after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing, the first data, (2) generating, at the one or more servers, a first query, wherein the first query is based on a query language compatible with the database and executable instructions for performing at least one operation within the database based on at least one of a first parameter associated with the standardized first data, a second parameter associated with the database, or a third parameter associated with the first query, (3) executing, at the one or more servers, the first query, wherein the executing of the first query comprises searching the database based on the at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, (4) determining, at the one or more servers, a first result of the first query, wherein the first result of the first query identifies or comprises second data, wherein the second data fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query, and wherein the at least one criteria is based on at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, and (5) updating or reconciling, at the database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data based on the first user input and the result of the first query.
Whittier discloses a system and method for information standardization and verification. The system provides a database to receive and store data (i.e., database storing standardized first data). The database can be, for example, a healthcare provider patient database. Whittier at para. 0014. (1) received (i.e., ingested data) is compared with existing patient data (i.e., previously ingested data) to determine discrepancies. If a discrepancy is discovered, the data is set aside for review (i.e., assigned a paused status indicator) and an appropriate user (i.e., user with appropriate credentials) is notified to review the data. Once the user has reviewed and corrected the data (i.e., after receiving approval), the processing of the data can continue. Whittier at paras. 0016, 0023-24. (2) The method includes determining a verification search risk level in order to determine how to generate the search (i.e., generating a first query … based on a query language compatible with the database). Whittier at para. 0018. (3) After determining the risk level, a search is performed on the database (executing … the first query) to determine if a standardized address is consistent with user demographic data (i.e., at least one of a first parameter … second parameter … third parameter). Whittier at paras. 0022-23. (4) The method further includes a comparison to find consistencies and inconsistencies in the data elements (i.e., determining a first result … identifies or comprises second data [that] fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query). Whittier at para. 0023. (5) Inconsistencies (i.e., fails to satisfy…) are reported back to the user and the user is able to provide input to correct (i.e., update or reconciling … based on the first user input and the result). Whittier at para. 0024.
Kumar Sethy and Whittier are analogous art because they are directed to information standardization and verification/validation.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy by adding the features of (1) wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assign a paused status indicator to the first data and after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing, the first data, (2) generating, at the one or more servers, a first query, wherein the first query is based on a query language compatible with the database and executable instructions for performing at least one operation within the database based on at least one of a first parameter associated with the standardized first data, a second parameter associated with the database, or a third parameter associated with the first query, (3) executing, at the one or more servers, the first query, wherein the executing of the first query comprises searching the database based on the at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, (4) determining, at the one or more servers, a first result of the first query, wherein the first result of the first query identifies or comprises second data, wherein the second data fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query, and wherein the at least one criteria is based on at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, and (5) updating or reconciling, at the database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data based on the first user input and the result of the first query, as taught by Whittier.
The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly correct inconsistencies in order to avoid unnecessary operation costs. Whittier at para. 0006.
Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier does not expressly disclose receiving, at the one or more server, a manifest file associated with the first data, and processing the first data based on the manifest file comprises: determining, based on the manifest file, a first data key associated with the first data, and transforming, based on the first data key, the first data into standardized first data and the first data includes a resolution property.
Davis discloses a system and method for providing a view of data imported from a plurality of sources and stored in a centralized repository. Davis at col. 3, lines 55-62; col. 8, lines 26-31. The system utilizes a markup language to provide a data standard and a function interface for manipulation of the data. Davis at col. 10, lines 27-33, 50-54. Data that is imported into the system includes documentation (i.e., manifest file). The documentation is also referred to as metadata. The documentation is used to interpret the data, determine how they are used, and how they are displayed. Such metadata includes: sources, contacts, license requirements, data types, data classes, handling instructions, units and measurements, and other information to produce various presentations. Davis at col. 10, lines 11-28. The system uses key fields (i.e., first data key) associated with the imported data to conform and normalize the data to a form that can be used by the downstream application (i.e., transforming the first data into standardized first data based on the first data key). Davis at col. 11, lines 34-51. Davis further discloses the data can be adjusted/modified to change its number precision (i.e., a resolution property of the first data). Davis at col. 37, lines 57-67; col. 38, lines 1-14.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, and Davis are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data ingestion and standardization.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier by adding the features of receiving, at the one or more server, a manifest file associated with the first data, and processing the first data based on the manifest file comprises: determining, based on the manifest file, a first data key associated with the first data, and transforming, based on the first data key, the first data into standardized first data and the first data includes a resolution property, as disclosed by Davis.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide standardization for reuse, automation and rapid development. Davis at col. 10, lines 28-32.
Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier and Davis does not expressly disclose the first data comprising an image and the first data includes a display size property and a display orientation property.
Bocirnea discloses and system and method for normalizing and processing medical images. A system server receives images (i.e., first data comprising an image) and ancillary information (i.e., a manifest file associated with the first data). Bocirnea at para. 0026. The system server normalizes the received image (i.e., processes the first data) in association with the ancillary information (i.e., based on the manifest file). As the image is normalized and processed including changing the size of the image (i.e., display size property) and rotating/flipping the image (i.e., display orientation property). Bocirnea at paras. 0037-38, 0042.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of information standardization.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier and Davis by adding the features of the first data comprising an image and the first data includes a display size property and a display orientation property, as disclosed by Bocirnea.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce image processing requirements of the client device. Bocirnea at para. 0034.
In regards to claim 2, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
a. automatically generating, at the one or more servers, a notification, wherein the notification comprises an identifier that flags that the second data failed to meet the at least one criteria of the first query (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0032, 0044); and
b. transmitting, from the one or more servers to the first computing device, the notification. Kumar Sethy at paras. 0032, 0044.5
In regards to claim 5, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file describes at least one data element of the first data (Davis at col. 10, lines 11-28) used to execute one or more of:
a. interpreting a structure of the first data prior to processing the first data; or
b. determining one or more keys associated with the first data including the first data key, such that the one or more keys are used to transform one or more properties including the resolution property of the first data, the display size property of the first data, and the display orientation property of the first data. Davis at col. 11, lines 34-51; col. 37, lines 57-67; col. 38, lines 1-14. Bocirnea at paras. 0037-38, 0042.6
In regards to claim 6, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more keys facilitate mapping of the one or more properties of the first data to one or more of: a data structure associated with the database; or a data format associated with the database. Davis at col. 15, lines 20-25.7
In regards to claim 7, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the manifest file indicates at least one of: source information associated with the first data; a data type associated with the first data; a format associated with the first data; and one or more data values associated with the first data. Davis at col. 10, lines 11-28.8
In regards to claim 8, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 7, wherein: the data type indicates one or more precision properties associated with the first data (Davis at col. 10, lines 22-27; col. 13, lines 45-58)9; and the data format indicates one or more configurable display properties associated with the first data. Davis at col. 10, lines 22-27.10
In regards to claim 9, Kumar Sethy discloses a system for updating standardized first data based on an automatically generated notification, the system comprising:
a. a computer processor, and memory storing a data engine that comprises instructions (Kumar Sethy at para. 0024) that are executable by the computer processor to:
i. receive, at one or more servers, first data comprising an image from one or more data sources, the first data including non-standardized data (Kumar Sethy at para. 0022)11;
ii. receive, at the one or more servers, a manifest file associated with the first data;
iii. process, at the one or more servers, based on the manifest file, the first data, wherein to process the first data comprises:
A. determining, based on the manifest file, a first data key associated with the first data,
B. transforming, based on the first data key, and based on a resolution property of the first data, a display size property of the first data, and a display orientation property of the first data, the first data into standardized first data (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0030-0031)12;
iii. store, at a database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data (Kumar Sethy at para. 0034)13;
iv. determine that the standardized first data fails to satisfy at least one criteria based on at least one of a second parameter associated with the database, such as pre-defined criteria, data governance rules and business logic (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0031-32).
Kumar Sethy does not expressly disclose (1) wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assign a paused status indicator to the first data and after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing, the first data, (2) generating, at the one or more servers, a first query, wherein the first query is based on a query language compatible with the database and executable instructions for performing at least one operation within the database based on at least one of a first parameter associated with the standardized first data, a second parameter associated with the database, or a third parameter associated with the first query, (3) executing, at the one or more servers, the first query, wherein the executing of the first query comprises searching the database based on the at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, (4) determining, at the one or more servers, a first result of the first query, wherein the first result of the first query identifies or comprises second data, wherein the second data fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query, and wherein the at least one criteria is based on at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, and (5) updating or reconciling, at the database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data based on the first user input and the result of the first query.
Whittier discloses a system and method for information standardization and verification. The system provides a database to receive and store data (i.e., database storing standardized first data). The database can be, for example, a healthcare provider patient database. Whittier at para. 0014. (1) received (i.e., ingested data) is compared with existing patient data (i.e., previously ingested data) to determine discrepancies. If a discrepancy is discovered, the data is set aside for review (i.e., assigned a paused status indicator) and an appropriate user (i.e., user with appropriate credentials) is notified to review the data. Once the user has reviewed and corrected the data (i.e., after receiving approval), the processing of the data can continue. Whittier at paras. 0016, 0023-24. (2) The method includes determining a verification search risk level in order to determine how to generate the search (i.e., generating a first query … based on a query language compatible with the database). Whittier at para. 0018. (3) After determining the risk level, a search is performed on the database (executing … the first query) to determine if a standardized address is consistent with user demographic data (i.e., at least one of a first parameter … second parameter … third parameter). Whittier at paras. 0022-23. (4) The method further includes a comparison to find consistencies and inconsistencies in the data elements (i.e., determining a first result … identifies or comprises second data [that] fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query). Whittier at para. 0023. (5) Inconsistencies (i.e., fails to satisfy…) are reported back to the user and the user is able to provide input to correct (i.e., update or reconciling … based on the first user input and the result). Whittier at para. 0024.
Kumar Sethy and Whittier are analogous art because they are directed to information standardization and verification/validation.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy by adding the features of (1) wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assign a paused status indicator to the first data and after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing, the first data, (2) generating, at the one or more servers, a first query, wherein the first query is based on a query language compatible with the database and executable instructions for performing at least one operation within the database based on at least one of a first parameter associated with the standardized first data, a second parameter associated with the database, or a third parameter associated with the first query, (3) executing, at the one or more servers, the first query, wherein the executing of the first query comprises searching the database based on the at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, (4) determining, at the one or more servers, a first result of the first query, wherein the first result of the first query identifies or comprises second data, wherein the second data fails to satisfy at least one criteria of the first query, and wherein the at least one criteria is based on at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter, and (5) updating or reconciling, at the database of the one or more servers, the standardized first data based on the first user input and the result of the first query, as taught by Whittier.
The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly correct inconsistencies in order to avoid unnecessary operation costs. Whittier at para. 0006.
Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier does not expressly disclose receiving, at the one or more server, a manifest file associated with the first data, and processing the first data based on the manifest file comprises: determining, based on the manifest file, a first data key associated with the first data, and transforming, based on the first data key, the first data into standardized first data and the first data includes a resolution property.
Davis discloses a system and method for providing a view of data imported from a plurality of sources and stored in a centralized repository. Davis at col. 3, lines 55-62; col. 8, lines 26-31. The system utilizes a markup language to provide a data standard and a function interface for manipulation of the data. Davis at col. 10, lines 27-33, 50-54. Data that is imported into the system includes documentation (i.e., manifest file). The documentation is also referred to as metadata. The documentation is used to interpret the data, determine how they are used, and how they are displayed. Such metadata includes: sources, contacts, license requirements, data types, data classes, handling instructions, units and measurements, and other information to produce various presentations. Davis at col. 10, lines 11-28. The system uses key fields (i.e., first data key) associated with the imported data to conform and normalize the data to a form that can be used by the downstream application (i.e., transforming the first data into standardized first data based on the first data key). Davis at col. 11, lines 34-51. Davis further discloses the data can be adjusted/modified to change its number precision (i.e., a resolution property of the first data). Davis at col. 37, lines 57-67; col. 38, lines 1-14.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, and Davis are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data ingestion and standardization.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier by adding the features of receiving, at the one or more server, a manifest file associated with the first data, and processing the first data based on the manifest file comprises: determining, based on the manifest file, a first data key associated with the first data, and transforming, based on the first data key, the first data into standardized first data and the first data includes a resolution property, as disclosed by Davis.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide standardization for reuse, automation and rapid development. Davis at col. 10, lines 28-32.
Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier and Davis does not expressly disclose the first data comprising an image and the first data includes a display size property and a display orientation property.
Bocirnea discloses and system and method for normalizing and processing medical images. A system server receives images (i.e., first data comprising an image) and ancillary information (i.e., a manifest file associated with the first data). Bocirnea at para. 0026. The system server normalizes the received image (i.e., processes the first data) in association with the ancillary information (i.e., based on the manifest file). As the image is normalized and processed including changing the size of the image (i.e., display size property) and rotating/flipping the image (i.e., display orientation property). Bocirnea at paras. 0037-38, 0042.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of information standardization.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier and Davis by adding the features of the first data comprising an image and the first data includes a display size property and a display orientation property, as disclosed by Bocirnea.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce image processing requirements of the client device. Bocirnea at para. 0034.
Claim 10 is essentially the same as claim 2 in the form of a system. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 12, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the system of claim 9, wherein:
a. the first query comprises one or more checks on data within the database (Kumar Sethy at paras. 0041-42)14;
b. the first query is associated with a plurality of criteria including the at least one criteria, the plurality of criteria including one or more of:
i. a data similarity property check comprised in the one or more checks;
ii. an out-of-range property value check comprised in the one or more checks;
iii. a data duplication property check comprised in the one or more checks; or
iv. a data security property check comprised in the one or more checks. Kumar Sethy at paras. 0041-42.15
In regards to Claim 13, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more keys including the first data key associated with the first data facilitate mapping of one or more properties including the resolution property of the first data, the display size property of the first data, and the display orientation of the first data to one or more of a data structure associated with the database or a data format associated with the database. Davis at col. 15, lines 20-25.16
In regards to claim 16, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the first parameter, or the second parameter, or the third parameter is associated with or comprises one of: a data status identifier; a data location identifier; a data discrepancy identifier; or a data flag identifier. Whittier at para. 0018.17
Claims 17 and 18 is essentially the same as claims 1 and 2, respectively, in the form of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium. Kumar Sethy at para. 0045. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 19, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the at least one criteria is based on at least one of the first parameter, the second parameter, or the third parameter. Kumar Sethy at paras. 0031-32.18
In regards to claim 23, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the manifest file comprises or is based on a data structure for interpreting the first data for storage within the database. Davis at col. 11, lines 37-51; col. 14, lines 38-46.
In regards to claim 24, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the standardized first data comprises data that has been formatted: to remove at least one discrepancy within the first data; or to enable a compatibility of the first data for storage within the database. Kumar Sethy at para. 0031.19
Claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar Sethy (US Patent Pub 2020/0004857), in view of Whittier et al. (US Patent Pub 2013/0110525) (Whittier), Davis (US Patent 6,920,608), and Bocirnea (US Patent Pub 2012/0250956), further in view of Gassner et al. (US Patent 10,902,081) (Gassner).
In regards to claim 3, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 1, does not expressly disclose wherein reconciling the standardized first data comprises:
a. generating an export definition for the first data; and
b. enabling data compatibility of the first data for use on the first computing device based on the export definition.
Gassner discloses a system and method that provides a data lake system that imports data, such as clinical data, via an API. The data lake system allows functionality, such as cleaning, reporting, exporting, and mapping of the data so it can be used by downstream computing devices (i.e., first computing device). Gassner at col. 49, lines 25-35. The system also provides exporting data into flat files (i.e., export definition for the first data). Flat files such as csv format files can be exported to enable data compatibility on the downstream device. Gassner at col. 50, lines 50-51; col. 65, lines 52-56.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, Bocirnea, and Gassner are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data verification/validation.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea by adding the features of wherein reconciling the standardized first data comprises generating an export definition for the first data and enabling data compatibility of the first data for use on the first computing device based on the export definition, as disclosed by Gassner.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the data exported from the data lakes to be used by downstream computing devices. Gassner at col. 49, lines 32-35.
In regards to claim 4, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the database is a metadata-driven database having a data structure that is queried using a clinical query language (CQL).
Gassner discloses a system and method for controlling electronic communications, including verifying contents of email for accuracy and validity. Gassner at abstract. The system includes using a database that stores data and utilizes metadata that is stored therewith or an external repository (i.e., metadata driven database). The database is further queried utilizing a Clinical Query Language (CQL). Gassner at col. 50, lines 14-55; col. 74, lines 5-15.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, Bocirnea, and Gassner are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data verification/validation.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea by adding the features of wherein the database is a metadata-driven database having a data structure that is queried using a clinical query language (CQL), as disclosed by Gassner.
The motivation for doing so would have been because CQL is a language for reviewing, cleaning, and exporting data with the advantage of the user does not need to understand the technical complexity of the underlying relationships to use it. Gassner at col. 49, lines 42-50.
In regards to claim 14, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first data comprises a file that is loaded into a data lake associated with the database and with which the database communicates via an application programming interface, the data lake comprising a plurality of raw unprocessed data from the one or more data sources or from a source or server distinct from the one or more data sources.
Gassner discloses a system and method that includes a data lake where data is imported from one or more sources via an API. Gassner at col. 49, lines 25-35. The data lake is further associated with a cloud based database that stores data in standardized data formats. Gassner at col. 7, lines 30-40.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea by adding the features of wherein the first data comprises a file that is loaded into a data lake associated with the database and with which the database communicates via an application programming interface, the data lake comprising a plurality of raw unprocessed data from the one or more data sources or from a source or server distinct from the one or more data sources, as disclosed by Gassner.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a centralized location for importing and processing of data before it is accessed and/or distributed to a downstream device. Gassner at col. 49, lines 26-35.
Claims 11 and 20 are essentially the same as claim 4 in the form of a system and a computer program product, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 3 in the form of a system. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
In regards to claim 21, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses the computer program product of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein to reconcile the standardized first data comprises:
a. generating an export definition for the first data; and
b. generating, based on the export definition, one or more of enabling a specification of a data format, a data structure, or a visualization type for presenting one or more of:
i. the notification;
ii. the standardized data; or
iii. the second data on a display device.
Gassner discloses a system and method that provides a data lake system that imports data, such as clinical data, via an API. The data lake system allows functionality, such as cleaning, reporting, exporting, and mapping of the data so it can be used by downstream computing devices (i.e., first computing device). Gassner at col. 49, lines 25-35. The system also provides exporting data into flat files (i.e., export definition for the first data). Flat files such as csv format files can be exported to enable data compatibility on the downstream device (i.e., to generate a data structure). Gassner at col. 50, lines 50-51; col. 65, lines 52-56.
Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, Bocirnea, and Gassner are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor of data verification/validation.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea by adding the features of wherein reconciling the standardized first data comprises generating an export definition for the first data and to generate, based on the export definition, one or more of enabling a specification of a data format, a data structure, or a visualization type for presenting one or more of: the notification, the standardized data, or the second data on a display device, as disclosed by Gassner.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the data exported from the data lakes to be used by downstream computing devices. Gassner at col. 49, lines 32-35.
In regards to claim 22, Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier, Davis, Bocirnea, and Gassner discloses the computer program product of claim 21, wherein to reconcile the standardized first data comprises one or more of:
a. generating, based on the export definition, a first consistency report for the first data; or
b. generating, based on the export definition, a second consistency report indicating a change to the first data. Gassner at col. 9, lines 37-48.20
Response to Amendment
Rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 9, and 17 are acknowledged and address the previously raised issues. However, the current amendments seem to raise new issues as set forth in the rejection above. Consequently, the rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13, 16-19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13, 16-19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1, Applicant alleges the cited prior art does not expressly disclose (1) “receiving … a manifest file associated with the first data, wherein, when the first data has a discrepancy relative to previously ingested data, the one or more servers assign a paused status indicator to the first data,” (2) “after receiving approval from a user with appropriate credentials to change the status indicator of the first data from the paused status indicator, processing … , based on the manifest file, the first data,” and (3) “transforming the first data into standardized first data based on the first data key, wherein the first data includes a resolution property of the first data, a display size property of the first data, and a display orientation property of the first data.” Remarks at 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
As set forth in the rejection above, the combination of cited art discloses limitations (1) through (3). In particular, Kumar Sethy discloses a validation process that analyzes data to determine whether the data meets desired formats and satisfies any rules or business logic. The validation process includes alerting a user to review the data when errors are detected. Kumar Sethy at paras. 0031-32. Additionally, Whittier discloses comparing received data with previously provided data (i.e., previously ingested data) to determine and identify discrepancies. If a discrepancy is discovered, an alert is provided to a healthcare provider in charge of the healthcare provider system (i.e., a user with appropriate credentials). Once alerted, the healthcare provider, the user who submitted the currently ingested data, or the administrative person (i.e., a user with appropriate credentials) is able to review the discrepancy and make necessary corrections. Whittier at paras. 0016, 0023-24. In other words, the combination of Kumar Sethy and Whittier discloses receiving data (i.e., first data), comparing the received data with previously received data to discover discrepancies, alerting an appropriate user if a discrepancy is discovered (i.e., assign a paused status indicator), and after review and correction, continuing the processing of the data (i.e., after receiving approval… processing the first data). In regards to limitation (3), Kumar Sethy in view of Whittier further in combination with Davis and Bocirnea discloses the limitation. Davis discloses receiving data with documentation (i.e., a manifest file) wherein the system uses key fields (i.e., first data key) associated with the imported data to conform and normalize the data for a downstream application (i.e., transforming the first data into standardized first data based on the first data key). Davis at col. 11, lines 34-51. As set forth in the rejection above, Davis and Bocirnea disclose imported data includes the various recited properties.
For at least the reasons explained above, the combination of Kumar Sethy, Whittier, Davis, and Bocirnea discloses limitations (1) through (3). Applicant does not present arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts the cited prior art discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In regards to the remaining claims, Applicant refers to the same arguments. Therefore, they remain rejected at least for the same reasons.
Consequently, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13, 16-19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant does not present arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Consequently, claims 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, and 20-22 remain rejected for at least the reasons explained above.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Kumar et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0124989) discloses a system and method for cross platform data validation including notifying users of discrepancies between data.
Fuller et al. (US patent Pub 2016/0378817) discloses a system and method for identifying data variations when normalizing data from a first format to a second selected format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Input data (i.e., first data) is received from source database (which may include various sources) at the validating device (i.e., one or more servers).
2 Data is processed for formatting and further processed to convert the data into a standard format that can be used for validation (i.e., standardized first data).
3 The analytics database
4 User can provide user input via a user interface.
5 User is sent an alert that the data that’s been validated fails to satisfy the criteria (i.e., identifier that flags that the second data failed to meet …).
6 Davis discloses the manifest file in the form of metadata documentation. Davis further discloses using keys to identify first data so that the first data can be manipulated including modifying/adjusting precision (i.e., transforming … resolution property). Bocirnea discloses transforming image size and rotation/flipping images as appropriate (i.e., display size, display orientation).
7 Mapping can be formed to map data fields from the imported data to the RDML data documents (i.e., data format associated with the database).
8 Source information, data type, data format information are all included in the metadata (i.e., manifest file).
9 Documentation (metadata) includes numbers and measurements, which are used to identify the meaning of the numbers, such as precision.
10 Documentation (metadata) includes information to produce presentations (i.e., display properties associated with the first data).
11 Input data (i.e., first data) is received from source database (which may include various sources) at the validating device (i.e., one or more servers).
12 Data is processed for formatting and further processed to convert the data into a standard format that can be used for validation (i.e., standardized first data).
13 The analytics database
14 Validations (i.e., checks) are performed on the data imported data (i.e., data within the database).
15 Validation includes checking predefined criteria, potential vulnerabilities (i.e., security property check), and data similarity.
16 Mapping can be formed to map data fields from the imported data to the RDML data documents (i.e., data format associated with the database).
17 The search is generated based on risk level assessment, which includes information, such as data inaccuracies (i.e., data discrepancies), information regarding unpaid bill (i.e., data status or data flag).
18 The at least one criteria, that the result is determined to fail to satisfy, is at least one of the parameters. IN this case, Kumar Sethy discloses at least the second parameter.
19 Data is converted to a standard format, which is format that is suitable for further processing by the validation module (i.e., enable a compatibility …)
20 A reporting engine provides reports on documents including a complete audit trail of changes (i.e., second consistency report indicating a change to the first data).