DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 01/08/26.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 7, 11-15, 17-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Foreign Priority/Priority Date
Applicant’s claim to the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/384,798 is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 11/23/22 has been given to this application. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application EP-23159106, filed on 2/28/23. A certified copy of the EP-23159106 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 was received on 12/15/23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20 are drawn to a method, and Claim 15 is drawn to a system, both of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving a query for the information;
identifying at least one code of a medical ontology based on the query;
determining one or more related codes in the medical ontology based on the medical ontology and the at least one code;
parsing medical records to identify one or more entries in the medical records indicating one or more of the identified at least one code and the one or more related codes;
ranking the one or more entries based on a number of references to the at least one code and a number of references to the one or more related codes included in each of the one or more entries; and
providing the information based on the one or more entries by displaying the one or more entries according to the ranking
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Identifying a code of a medical ontology based on a query and identifying at least one or more related codes in the medical ontology, parsing medical records to identify entries indicating the one or more codes and related codes, ranking the one or more entries, and providing the information of one or more entries by ranking are personal behaviors that may be performed by personnel working in the healthcare field.
Independent claim 15 recites similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a “computer-implemented” method (Claim 1)
a computing unit as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 15)
an interface unit as implementing the steps of obtaining a query and providing the information based on the identified entries (Claim 15)
electronic medical record database as the means of maintaining medical records (Claim 1, 15)
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding computer/computing unit, para. [0165] discloses “The computing unit may be realized as a data processing system or as a part of a data processing system. Such a data processing system can, for example, comprise a cloud-computing system, a computer network, a computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone and/or the like. The computing unit can comprise hardware and/or software. The hardware can comprise, for example, one or more processors, one or more memories, and combinations thereof.” Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the interface unit, para. [0166] discloses “The interface unit may comprise an interface for data exchange with the medical records database for parsing the medical records database and receiving the entries. The interface unit may be further adapted to interface with one or more users of the system, e.g., by receiving the query and/or displaying the result of the processing, i.e., the information, to the user (e.g., in a graphical user interface)”. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the electronic medical record database, no particulars or database structures are provided. Per paras. [0175]-[0176], this element is understood to amount to maintaining medical records electronically in a database, e.g., applying the abstract idea on a computer.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 15 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims or recite limitations that are also certain methods of organizing human activity:
Claim 2 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the query comprises natural language and the identifying the at least one code comprises: identifying codes of the medical ontology in natural language, and inputting the query to identify the at least one code of the medical ontology in the query, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior. Recitation of “natural language processing algorithm” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the natural language processing algorithm comprises a transformer network. Per paras. [0076]-[0077] this is understood to be a “a neural network architecture generally comprising an encoder, a decoder or both an encoder and decoder“, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the determining the one or more related codes comprises: identifying one or more related particular codes based on the at least one code and the medical ontology, and analyzing the medical ontology and the at least one code to determine the one or more related codes, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as healthcare personnel could identify a related code based on a code and an ontology and analyze them to determine related codes. Recitation of “data processing algorithm”, wherein the data processing algorithm comprises a transformer network, amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. Per paras. [0076]-[0077] the transformer network is understood to be a “a neural network architecture generally comprising an encoder, a decoder or both an encoder and decoder“, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the determining the one or more related codes comprises: obtaining the medical ontology as a graph data structure, determining related codes in graph data structures, and determining the one or more related codes using the medical ontology and the at least one code, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as healthcare personnel could identify a use a graph data structure to determine related codes using a medical ontology and at least one identified code. Recitation of “a graph search algorithm” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the obtaining the graph search algorithm comprises: providing a plurality of different graph search algorithms, and selecting the graph search algorithm from the plurality of different graph search algorithms based on at least one of the at least one code, a type of the medical ontology or the query, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as healthcare personal could make a selection of one particular algorithm from a group of algorithms based on at least one code, ontology or query. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the plurality of different graph search algorithms comprises a first graph search algorithm implementing a depth-first search scheme or a hierarchical recursive search scheme, and a second graph search algorithm implementing a breadth-first search scheme or a lateral recursive search scheme. This amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using computers to perform a graph search. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the providing comprises: providing a post-processing function configured to process the one or more entries to generate one or more human-interpretable observables, applying the post-processing function to the one or more entries, and providing the one or more human-interpretable observables, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer to process data to obtain human-interpretable observables. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites limitations pertaining to further comprising: generating a synopsis for each entry, wherein the providing provides the generated synopses, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as a person working in healthcare could generate and provide a synopsis and for each entry. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites limitations pertaining to wherein at least one of the at least one code and the one or more related codes is associated with a numerical value, which further narrows the scope of the abstract idea. Claim 11 also recites limitations pertaining to determining a threshold for the numerical value based on the query, wherein the providing includes selecting a subset of entries from the one or more entries based on the threshold and respective numerical values, wherein the information is based on the subset of entries, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as a person working in healthcare could determine a threshold for numerical values and select entries based on the threshold. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the medical ontology is stored in a graph database and encodes references of codes of the medical ontology to data identifiers of the electronic medical record database, the graph database being different than the electronic medical record database, and the parsing the electronic medical record database comprises: determining at least one pertinent data identifier based on the encoded references and the at least one code and the one or more related codes, and retrieving entries from the electronic medical record database based on the at least one pertinent data identifier. Recitation of the graph database, electronic medical record data base amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. The limitations include certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare worker could parse medical record data by determining a pertinent data identifier based on a reference and use it to retrieve medical records. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites limitations pertaining to further comprising: determining a clinical context of the query based on at least one of the query or the at least one code; and selecting a presentation state from a plurality of different predetermined presentation states based on the clinical context, each of the plurality of different predetermined presentation states defining a visual representation for the information, wherein the providing the information includes, applying the presentation state to the one or more entries to generate a visual representation, and displaying the visual representation, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity, as a healthcare worker could perform the determination and selection steps and generate a visual representation. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites limitations to wherein each presentation state is associated with at least one post-processing function configured to process an entry to generate one or more human- interpretable observables from the entry, applying the presentation state comprises applying the associated at least one post-processing function to the one or more entries to generate one or more human-interpretable observables, and the visual representation is based on the one or more human-interpretable observables, which further narrows the scope. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 recites limitations pertaining to a computer program product comprising program elements which, when executed by a computing unit of a system for providing information from an electronic medical record database, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of Claim 1 using a computer program product comprising program elements. Per paras. [0024], these are understood to be general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacity. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites limitations pertaining to a computer-readable medium on which program elements are stored which, when executed by a computing unit of a system for providing information from an electronic medical record database, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1. Per paras. [0025], these are understood to be general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacity. (Per [0298], this element is being interpreted as a “non-transitory” CRM for purposes of examination.) These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 recites limitations pertaining to providing a post-processing function configured to process the one or more entries to generate one or more human-interpretable observables, applying the post-processing function to the entries, and providing the human-interpretable observables, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer to process data to obtain human-interpretable observables. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the providing the post-processing function is based on one or more of the at least one identified code and at least one of the one or more related codes or the query to generate the one or more human-interpretable observables, which further narrows the scope. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the generating the synopsis is based on one or more of the at least one code and at least one of the one or more related codes or the query, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as a person working in healthcare could generate the synopsis based on one or more of the identified code and related code. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-7, 9-20 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186A1) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1), and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weber discloses:
a computer-implemented method for providing information from an electronic medical record database ([0005] teaches on a data processing system for improved searches of medical concepts; at least one medical concept is identified in a search request (“query”); [0060] further teaches on a decision support system for providing search results to a user gathering information from patient EMRs), the method comprising:
receiving a query for the information ([0005] teaches on receiving a search request, interpreted as a “query”; [0033] teaches on a cognitive system for healthcare applications; requests may be provided as structured/unstructured request messages, search requests, natural language questions – all interpreted as “query”; [0037] teaches on receiving requests posed in the form of a natural language question, natural language request for information, etc. – also interpreted as receiving a query for information);
identifying at least one [concept] of a medical ontology based on the query ([0005] teaches on after receiving a search request, identifying at least one medical concept and one or more related medical concepts based on an ontology data structure; [0044] teaches on a medical concept searching engine which defines medical concepts in terms of a “predefined ontology” in which medical concepts may identify their relationships with other medical concepts; [0045] teaches on a user entering a search; when at least one of the search terms is a medical concept recognized by the system (“at least one concept of a medical ontology based on the query”), the system looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept) – identifying at least one medical concept based on the query);
determining one or more related [concepts] in the medical ontology based on the medical ontology and the at least one [concept] ([0045] teaches on a user entering a search; when at least one of the search terms is a medical concept recognized by the system, the medical concept searching engine looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept and related medical concepts to suggest – determining related concepts; per [0044] it is understood that medical concepts may be in terms of predefined ontology);
parsing the electronic medical record database to identify one or more entries in the electronic medical record database indicating one or more of the at least one [concept] and the one or more related [concepts] ([0045] teaches on identifying a medical concept and related medical concept in a user’s search; the medical concept searching engine may retrieve the medical concepts related to the medical concept specified in the query; per [0044] it is understood that medical concepts may be in terms of predefined ontology; [0060] teaches on using the system specifically to operate the search request utilizing information gathered from patient EMRs; see Fig. 3 which shows user 306 putting in search request 308; information may be retrieved from patient EMRs 322 which is interpreted as an EMR database);
and providing the information based on the identified one or more entries ([0072] teaches on the concept search engine generating search results to reflect a search request).
Weber teaches on identifying a medical concept and related medical concepts via an ontology, and searching for instances of one or more of the concept or related concepts, but does not explicitly teach on identifying a medical “code” and one or more related “codes”. Martin, which is directed to an ontological medical coding system, teaches medical code / related code in an ontology ([0036] teaches on medical categories in an ontology containing medical concepts that may be part of the meaning of one or more medical codes and are linked to medical codes that contain the medical concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber with these teachings of Martin, to use the codes of Martin in the system of Weber, with the motivation of motivation of using medical codes to specify, catalog, report and document medical for a particular patient by using codes that represent different types of conditions, diagnostics, treatments and other medical actions, as medical codes are an integral part of the various healthcare information management systems adopted by governments, public/integral part of the various health information management (HIM) systems adopted by governments, public/private healthcare organizations, and international health agencies for various purposes, including medical billing, epidemiological studies, health services research, medical resource analysis and reallocation, and public education (Martin [0002]/[0003]).
Weber/Martin do not teach the following. Reumann, which is directed to assigning medical coding, teaches:
ranking the one or more entries based on a number of references to the at least one code and a number of references to the one or more related codes included in each of the one or more entries ([0005] teaches on querying a knowledge graph for a diagnosis code, the knowledge graph comprising as nodes, diagnosis codes and related procedure codes, and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes; and receiving, based on the query, a ranked list of the diagnosis codes, related procedure codes and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes, based on the relative occurrences of the past medical records)
providing the information based on the identified one or more entries by displaying the one or more entries according to the ranking ([0005] teaches on receiving, based on the query, a ranked list of the diagnosis codes, related procedure codes and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes, based on the relative occurrences of the past medical records; Examiner interprets receiving the ranked list to read on “displaying” the entries as para. [0005] teaches on computer implementation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the teachings of Weber/Martin with these teachings of Reumann, to rank the returned entries of Weber/Martin based on the number of occurrences and display the entries according to the ranking, with the motivation of using statistics of historical data to rank the returned list (Reumann [0032]).
Regarding Claim 2, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1. Weber further discloses wherein the query comprises natural language ([0033] teaches on a user making a request for information; the request may be provided as “natural language questions”; [0037] teaches on the system receiving a request in the form of a natural language question or natural language request for information) and the identifying the at least one [concept] comprises: providing a natural language processing algorithm configured to identify [concepts] of the medical ontology in natural language, and inputting the query in the natural language processing algorithm to identify the at least one [concept] of the medical ontology in the query ([0045] teaches on a user inputting a search which may be natural language per [0033] and [0037]; when the search includes a medical concept recognized by the system, the medical concept search engine 120 looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept and related concept – the medical concept search engine looking to the concept index model is interpreted as a NLP algorithm as it uses the inputted natural language to identify medical concepts).
Weber does not explicitly disclose on “code”, but Martin further teaches medical code / related code in an ontology ([0036] teaches on medical categories in an ontology containing medical concepts that may be part of the meaning of one or more medical codes and are linked to medical codes that contain the medical concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Martin, to use the codes of Martin in the system of Weber, with the motivation of motivation of using medical codes to specify, catalog, report and document medical for a particular patient by using codes that represent different types of conditions, diagnostics, treatments and other medical actions, as medical codes are an integral part of the various healthcare information management systems adopted by governments, public/integral part of the various health information management (HIM) systems adopted by governments, public/private healthcare organizations, and international health agencies for various purposes, including medical billing, epidemiological studies, health services research, medical resource analysis and reallocation, and public education (Martin [0002]/[0003]).
Regarding Claim 15, Weber discloses an interface unit ([0059] teaches on a user submitting a search request via a user interface on a client computing device); and a computing unit configured to cause the system to ([0006], [0007] teach on various system architectures using computing components):
obtain a query for the information via the interface unit ([0005] teaches on receiving a search request, interpreted as a “query”; [0033] teaches on a cognitive system for healthcare applications; requests may be provided as structured/unstructured request messages, search requests, natural language questions – all interpreted as “query”; [0037] teaches on receiving requests posed in the form of a natural language question, natural language request for information, etc. – also interpreted as receiving a query for information; [0059] teaches that a user search request is submitted via a user interface on a client computing device),
identify at least one [concept] of a medical ontology based on the query ([0005] teaches on after receiving a search request, identifying at least one medical concept and one or more related medical concepts based on an ontology data structure; [0044] teaches on a medical concept searching engine which defines medical concepts in terms of a “predefined ontology” in which medical concepts may identify their relationships with other medical concepts; [0045] teaches on a user entering a search; when at least one of the search terms is a medical concept recognized by the system (“at least one concept of a medical ontology based on the query”), the system looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept),
determine one or more related [concepts] in the medical ontology based on the medical ontology and the at least one [concept] ([0045] teaches on a user entering a search; when at least one of the search terms is a medical concept recognized by the system, the medical concept searching engine looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept and related medical concepts to suggest” – determining related concepts based on the identified concept; per [0044] it is understood that medical concepts may be in terms of predefined ontology),
parse the electronic medical record database via the interface unit to identify entries in the electronic medical record database comprising one or more of the at least one [concept] and the one or more related [concepts] ([0045] teaches on identifying a medical concept and related medical concept in a user’s search; the medical concept searching engine may retrieve the medical concepts related to the medical concept specified in the query; per [0044] it is understood that medical concepts may be in terms of predefined ontology; [0060] teaches on using the system specifically to operate the search request utilizing information gathered from patient EMRs; see Fig. 3 which shows user 306 putting in search request 308; information may be retrieved from patient EMRs 322 which is interpreted as an EMR database), and
provide the information based on the identified entries via the interface unit ([0058]/Fig. 3 teach on the healthcare cognitive system 300 providing search results 328 to the user; healthcare system 300 enables “electronic” interactions with the user via “a computing device” such as a client computing device 110 or 112 of Fig. 1 which is shown as a desktop computer with a display, interpreted as an interface; [0072] further teaches on the concept search engine generating search results to reflect a search request).
Weber teaches on identifying a medical concept and related medical concepts via an ontology, and searching for instances of one or more of the concept or related concepts, but does not explicitly teach on identifying a medical “code” and one or more related “codes”. Martin, which is directed to an ontological medical coding system, teaches medical code / related code in an ontology ([0036] teaches on medical categories in an ontology containing medical concepts that may be part of the meaning of one or more medical codes and are linked to medical codes that contain the medical concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber with these teachings of Martin, to use the codes of Martin in the system of Weber, with the motivation of motivation of using medical codes to specify, catalog, report and document medical for a particular patient by using codes that represent different types of conditions, diagnostics, treatments and other medical actions, as medical codes are an integral part of the various healthcare information management systems adopted by governments, public/integral part of the various health information management (HIM) systems adopted by governments, public/private healthcare organizations, and international health agencies for various purposes, including medical billing, epidemiological studies, health services research, medical resource analysis and reallocation, and public education (Martin [0002]/[0003]).
Weber/Martin do not teach the following. Reumann, which is directed to assigning medical coding, teaches:
rank the one or more entries based on a number of references to the at least one code and a number of references to the one or more related codes included in each of the one or more entries ([0005] teaches on querying a knowledge graph for a diagnosis code, the knowledge graph comprising as nodes, diagnosis codes and related procedure codes, and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes; and receiving, based on the query, a ranked list of the diagnosis codes, related procedure codes and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes, based on the relative occurrences of the past medical records)
provide the information based on the identified one or more entries by displaying the one or more entries according to the ranking ([0005] teaches on receiving, based on the query, a ranked list of the diagnosis codes, related procedure codes and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes, based on the relative occurrences of the past medical records; Examiner interprets receiving the ranked list to read on “displaying” the entries as para. [0005] teaches on computer implementation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the teachings of Weber/Martin with these teachings of Reumann, to rank the returned entries of Weber/Martin based on the number of occurrences and display the entries according to the ranking, with the motivation of using statistics of historical data to rank the returned list (Reumann [0032]).
Regarding Claim 16, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1. Weber further discloses a computer program product comprising program elements which, when executed by a computing unit of a system for providing information from an electronic medical record database, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1 (para. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 17, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1. Weber further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which program elements are stored which, when executed by a computing unit of a system for providing information from an electronic medical record database, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1 (para. [0025]).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Jang et. al. (US Publication 20230255581A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 2 but do not teach the following. Jang, which is directed to deep learning methods for identifying plaque, teaches: wherein the natural language processing algorithm comprises a transformer network ([0085] teaches on using a transformer network architecture for natural language processing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Weber/Martin with these teachings of Weber/Martin/Reumann to include a transformer network as the NLP algorithm in the system of Weber/Martin/Reumann, because transformers have the advantage of attending to distant elements as well as nearby elements without attenuation (Jang [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1. Weber further discloses wherein the determining the one or more related codes comprises: providing a data processing algorithm configured to identify one or more related particular [concepts] based on the at least one [concept] and the medical ontology, and applying the data processing algorithm to the medical ontology and the at least one [concept] to determine the one or more related [concepts] ([0045] teaches on a user inputting a search which may be natural language per [0033] and [0037]; when the search includes a medical concept recognized by the system, the medical concept search engine 120 looks to the medical concept index model to identify a medical concept and a related concept – the medical concept search engine looking to the concept index model is interpreted as the data processing algorithm as it uses the inputted query to identify medical concepts that are related to the identified medical concept).
Weber does not explicitly disclose on “code”, but Martin further teaches medical code / related code in an ontology ([0036] teaches on medical categories in an ontology containing medical concepts that may be part of the meaning of one or more medical codes and are linked to medical codes that contain the medical concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber with these teachings of Martin, to use the codes of Martin in the system of Weber, with the motivation of motivation of using medical codes to specify, catalog, report and document medical for a particular patient by using codes that represent different types of conditions, diagnostics, treatments and other medical actions, as medical codes are an integral part of the various healthcare information management systems adopted by governments, public/integral part of the various health information management (HIM) systems adopted by governments, public/private healthcare organizations, and international health agencies for various purposes, including medical billing, epidemiological studies, health services research, medical resource analysis and reallocation, and public education (Martin [0002]/[0003]).
Weber/Martin/Reumann do not teach the following. Jang, which is directed to deep learning methods for identifying plaque, teaches: wherein the data processing algorithm comprises a transformer network ([0085] teaches on using a transformer network architecture for natural language processing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Jang to include a transformer network as the data processing algorithm in the system of Weber/Martin, because transformers have the advantage of attending to distant elements as well as nearby elements without attenuation (Jang [0046]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Pillai et al. (US Publication 20210358601A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1 but do not disclose the following. Pillai, which is directed to an AI system for clinical data semantic interoperability, teaches wherein the determining the one or more related codes comprises: obtaining the medical ontology as a graph data structure ([0003], a method for extracting one or more medical concepts from clinical data based on NLP technique; identifying corresponding clinical concepts for a first and second medical concept by analyzing one or more medical ontologies using an ontology traversal technique with an “ontology knowledge graph of interlinked medical concepts with a hierarchy of class levels” (interpreted as medical ontology as a graph data structure), obtaining a graph search algorithm configured to determine related codes in graph data structures ([0034] teaches on using an ontology traversal technique to facilitate generation of clinical context data; the ontology traversal technique can be a technique to traverse one or more portions of clinical data and/or an ontology knowledge graph of interlinked medical concepts with a hierarchy of class levels; the inference/rule engine can search for one or more matching concepts within one or more groups and/or hierarchies associated with clinical data – ontology traversal techniques are interpreted as “graph search algorithm”; [0034] further teaches on using the inference/rule engine to traverse from a sub-class level to super-class level associated with groups or super-class to sub-class, to determine whether narrative text in clinical data matches one or more clinical concepts; [0034] explains how the terms “traversal” and “traverse” indicate the process of visiting (checking) each node in an ontology graph which is interpreted as a search algorithm), and inputting the medical ontology and the at least one [concept] in the graph search algorithm to determine the one or more related [concepts] ([0034] the inference/rule engine can employ an ontology traversal technique to search for one or more matching concepts within one or more groups and/or hierarchies associated with clinical data – ontology traversal techniques are interpreted as “graph search algorithm”; [0034] further teaches on using the inference/rule engine to traverse from a sub-class level to super-class level associated with groups or super-class to sub-class, to determine whether narrative text in clinical data matches one or more clinical concepts; [0066] provides multiple examples of the engine identifying related concepts from the ontology knowledge graph using an ontology traversal technique (search algorithm), e.g., locating a parent concept from the knowledge graph or caching a list of child concepts associated with the parent concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Pillai, to use a medical ontology as a graph data structure to identify related medical codes (medical codes are already taught by Martin, per parent Claim 1), with the motivation of organizing medical concepts so that parent-child concepts associated with one or more related medical concepts can be determined and utilized (Pillai [0085]).
Regarding Claim 6, Weber/Martin/Reumann/Pillai teach the limitations of Claim 5. Weber/Martin do not teach, but Pillai further teaches wherein the obtaining the graph search algorithm comprises: providing a plurality of different graph search algorithms ([0034] teaches on traversals, interpreted as search algorithms, including “depth-first searches/traversals” and “breadth-first searches/traversals”), and selecting the graph search algorithm from the plurality of different graph search algorithms based on at least one of the at least one identified code, a type of the medical ontology or the query ([0063] teaches on facilitating an ontology traversal technique based at least in part on data from the natural processing engine, e.g., performing the ontology traversal technique to identify root concepts for medical concepts identified by natural processing engine, which is interpreted as selecting the algorithm based on the query).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the teachings of Weber/Martin/Reumann/Pillai with these teachings of Pillai, to provide a plurality of graph search algorithms and to select the algorithm based on the query, with the motivation of employing an ontology traversal technique based on corresponding interlinked concepts in the ontology (Pillai [0063]).
Regarding Claim 7, Weber/Martin/Reumann/Pillai teach the limitations of Claim 6. Weber/Martin do not teach, but Pillai further teaches, wherein the plurality of different graph search algorithms comprises a first graph search algorithm implementing a depth-first search scheme or a hierarchical recursive search scheme ([0034] teaches on node traversals including depth-first searches/traversals), and a second graph search algorithm implementing a breadth-first search scheme or a lateral recursive search scheme ([0034] teaches on node traversals including breadth-first searches/traversals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the teachings of Weber/Martin/Reumann/Pillai with these teachings of Pillai, to use first and second graph search algorithms such as a depth-first search scheme and breadth-first search scheme, respectively, with the motivation of specifying the order in which nodes are visited in a search (Pillai [0034])
Claim(s) 9, 11, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, and further in view of Boloor et. al. (US Publication 20160019299A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the following. Boloor, which is directed to deep semantic search of EMRs, teaches: wherein the providing comprises: providing a post-processing function configured to process the one or more entries to generate one or more human-interpretable observables, applying the post-processing function to the one or more entries, and providing the one or more human-interpretable observables ([0028] teaches on receiving a user query and subsequently analyzing it to identify medical semantic concepts; [0029] teaches on searching an EMR for instances of the semantic concepts; see Fig. 5B which shows a results screen in which entries containing “ht” or related terms (hypertension or high blood pressure) have been identified in EMR entries; the left-most column shows “order date” for each entry which is interpreted as being a post-processing function applied to the entries in which the date is interpreted as “a human-interpretable observable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Boloor, to incorporate a post-processing function to generate a human-interpretable observable for result entries for display, with the motivation of tagging results of each EMR entry with attribute information such as a date (Boloor [0038]).
Regarding Claim 11, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the following. Boloor, which is directed to deep semantic search of EMRs, teaches: wherein at least one of the at least one [concepts] and the one or more related [concepts] is associated with a numerical value ([0062] teaches on analyzing an EMR based on identified medical semantic concepts in response to a query; the input query is used to search EMR contents; the query retrieves matching results including clinical notes, passages, terms, structured information based on medical semantic matches and the relationships of the EMR content to the input query; the results are scored, producing a set of scores, based on semantic match to input query; the individual scores may be combined into an aggregate score – Examiner interprets scores and an aggregate score to both read on the identified concept being “associated with a numerical value”), the method further comprising: determining a threshold for the numerical value based on the query ([0062] teaches on a “predetermined threshold” for returning results in response to a query; Examiner interprets the “predetermined threshold” to indicate that a threshold for the numerical value (score) has been determined for the query), wherein the providing includes selecting a subset of entries from the one or more entries based on the threshold and respective numerical values, wherein the information is based on the subset of entries ([0062] teaches on results with an aggregate score (interpreted as respective numerical values) above a predetermined threshold being returned in response to an input query – results exceeding the threshold are interpreted as being the ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Boloor, to associate a numerical value with each identified concept which can be compared to a threshold and selecting entries based on the threshold/respective numerical value (score) for providing, with the motivation of using a threshold to provide results based on their relevance to the input query and relationship strength among relevant entries (Boloor [0003]).
Regarding Claim 18, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 2 but do not teach the following. Boloor, which is directed to deep semantic search of EMRs, teaches: wherein the providing comprises: providing a post-processing function configured to process the one or more entries to generate one or more human-interpretable observables, applying the post-processing function to the entries, and providing the one or more human-interpretable observables ([0028] teaches on receiving a user query and subsequently analyzing it to identify medical semantic concepts; [0029] teaches on searching an EMR for instances of the semantic concepts; see Fig. 5B which shows a results screen in which entries containing “ht” or related terms (hypertension or high blood pressure) have been identified in EMR entries; the left-most column shows “order date” for each entry which is interpreted as being a post-processing function applied to the entries in which the date is interpreted as “a human-interpretable observable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Boloor, to incorporate a post-processing function to generate a human-interpretable observable for result entries for display, with the motivation of tagging results of each EMR entry with attribute information such as a date (Boloor [0038]).
Regarding Claim 19, Weber/Martin/Reumann/Boloor teach the limitations of claim 9. Weber/Martin do not teach, but Boloor further teaches wherein the providing the post- processing function is based on one or more of the at least one identified [concept] (paras. [0028]/[0029] and Fig 5B; identified concept is “ht” which is used to generate the post-processing function) and at least one of the one or more related [concepts] or the query to generate the one or more human-interpretable observables (see Fig. 5B which shows a results screen in which entries containing “ht” or related terms (hypertension or high blood pressure, interpreted as “at least one or more of the related concepts”) have been identified in EMR entries; the left-most column shows “order date” for each entry which is interpreted as being a post-processing function applied to the entries based on the identified concept (ht) and related concepts (hypertension and high blood pressure) in which the date is interpreted as “a human-interpretable observable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Weber/Martin/Reumann/Boloor with these teachings of Boloor, to incorporate a post-processing function to generate a human-interpretable observable for result entries for display based on the code and related codes taught by Martin (as shown with respect to parent Claim 1), with the motivation of tagging results of each EMR entry with attribute information such as a date (Boloor [0038]).
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Csurka et. al. (US Publication 20140350961A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1 but do not teach the following. Csurka, which is directed to targeted summarization of medical information based on queries, teaches: further comprising: generating a synopsis for each entry, wherein the providing provides the generated synopses ([0010] teaches on retrieving health records based on a query; a summarization component generates a summary based on the retrieved responsive health records for display to a healthcare provider interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Csurka, so that each entry (result) of Weber/Martin/Reumann includes a generated synopsis which is provided to the user, with the motivation of summarizing relevant medical data for presentation to a healthcare provider with the motivation of helping them to make more informed decisions in a timely manner (Csurka [0042]/[0006]).
Regarding Claim 20, Weber/Martin/Reumann/Csurka teach the limitations of Claim 10. Weber/Martin do not teach, but Csurka, which is directed to targeted summarization of medical information based on queries, teaches, wherein the generating the synopsis is based on one or more of the at least one [concepts] and at least one of the one or more related [concepts] or the query ([0022] teaches on patient records are aggregated and stored electronically; a uniform representation based on an ontology such as UMLS is used to generate a representation of each patient’s records; a query is generated based on implicit query and explicit query component; an implicit query may include relevant context such as patient/provider consultation or patient lab results (“the query”); an explicit query component may be based on information input by the healthcare provider such as medical procedures (e.g., “identified concept”); the query is used to access the UMLS-based representation to identify relevant records to be retrieved; the retrieved records are summarized and visualized to generate a graphical rendition; [0049]-[0056] further teach on summarizing and visualizing at least some of the retrieved records based on information retrieved based on a healthcare provider request (explicit query) along with implicit query (the query)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Weber/Martin/Reumann/Csurka with these teachings of Csurka, to generate the synopsis based on the at least one identified codes (medical codes are taught by Martin per parent Claim 1), with the motivation of creating queries to find relevant information in the PHR of a given patient for summarization (Csurka [0042]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucas et. al. (US Publication 20200176098 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1 but do not teach the following. Lucas, which is directed to clinical concept identification and extraction, teaches: wherein the medical ontology is stored in a graph database ([0183]/Fig. 2, an exemplary ontological graph database for viewing links between different concept databases that may be interlinked) and encodes references of codes of the medical ontology to data identifiers of the electronic medical record database ([0065]-[0072] teach on an example of text stating a patient was given Tylenol 50mg at 10:305am; the system parses the data to identify a concept unique identifier field of the UMLS entry corresponding to the medication; allowing a specific CUI (identifier) of Tylenol to be linked to the patient; [0184] teaches on MMSL#3826 being linked to a respective synonym; [0185] teaches on Fig. 6, showing “Tylenol 50mg” linked to MMSL identity #3826 as an identifier, interpreted as the graph database encoding references of the medical ontology to identifiers of medical record database, e.g., Tylenol 50mg in patient record), the graph database being different than the electronic medical record database (see Fig. 1 which shows “ontological graphical algorithm” as a separate entity than “Data Repository” which is understood to be a patient data store per [0043], interpreted as EMR database), and the parsing the electronic medical record database comprises: determining at least one pertinent data identifier based on the encoded references and the at least one identified code and the one or more related codes ([0182] teaches on Tylenol and Tylenol 50mg matching with a UMLS concept for “amphetamine”, interpreted as “at least one pertinent data identifier based on encoded reference; [0183] teaches on Tylenol being linked to acetaminophen or dosage; [0184] teaches on relationships between concepts being represented; e.g., MMSL #3826, C0711228, RXNORM # . . . , etc.) are each linked to their respective synonyms, (e.g., Tylenol 50 mg, Acetaminophen, Mapap, Ofirmev etc.) and retrieving entries from the electronic medical record database based on the at least one pertinent data identifier ([0182] teaches on determining which of the entity linked concepts are relevant to abstraction (e.g., retrieving); if they are relevant, encoding schema may be applied to encapsulate the abstraction completely).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Lucas, to use an ontological graph database in which ontology codes are linked to EMR identifiers, parsing the EMR database to determine at least one pertinent identifier based on the encoded references and related codes, and retrieving entries based on the pertinent identifier, with the motivation of using a graph database for the medical ontology to indicate linkages between related concepts (Lucas [0043]) and for searching over an ontological graph database having relationships including meta-synonymous links, synonymous relationships between links, and other relationships to identity and retrieve entries (Lucas [0188]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et. al. (US Publication 20210209186) in view of Martin et. al. (US Publication 20160004825A1) and further in view of Reumann et. al. (US 20210319858 A1
as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Fors et. al. (US Publication 20080208630A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Weber/Martin/Reumann teach the limitations of Claim 1 but do not teach the following. Fors, which is directed to methods and systems for accessing a saved patient context in a clinical information system, teaches:
further comprising: determining a clinical context of the query based on at least one of the query ([0022], [0024] teach on displaying results for a particular patient search, interpreted as a query which shows Search box on right side along with various items and values with check boxes, e.g., in Fig. 2 all boxes have been checked (allergies, health maint., imaging, immunization, etc.; on the left side, results are returned and are tagged (item) with corresponding search items and values, e.g., allergies is checked on the right for search, and “allergy” of “strawberries:hives” shows up in the results for 2-18-2006 – interpreted as determining a clinical context based on the search query) or the at least one code (not require per “at least one of” claim language); and selecting a presentation state from a plurality of different predetermined presentation states based on the clinical context, each of the plurality of different predetermined presentation states defining a visual representation for the information ([0024] teaches on providing search results in row and column format; headings can be configurable to display metadata relevant to specific users; e.g., See Figs. 2-3, columns may be configured to display information regarding items and values such as dates and visits; See Fig. 2; the data presented in left side (presentation state) is selected based on the clinical contexts identified on the right side – if any certain data is displayed (e.g., Allergy – Strawberries), it is interpreted that the presentation state for Allergies has been selected based on the clinical context in it is defined that Allergy search results are shown) wherein the providing the information includes, applying the selected presentation state to the one or more entries to generate the visual representation, and displaying the visual representation (See Fig. 2, showing various items/values on the left side (entries – e.g., Allergy – Strawberries) in response to a user query in which Allergies/Substance were among the contexts searched; displaying the specific items & values is interpreted as generating and displaying the visual representation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann with these teachings of Fors, to determine a context of a query, select a presentation state, and generate the visual representation, with the motivation of enabling the healthcare provider user to visualize a full context of a patient’s health ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 14, Weber/Martin/Reumann/Fors teach the limitations of claim 13. Weber/Martin/Reumann do not teach, but Fors further teaches, wherein each presentation state is associated with at least one post-processing function configured to process an entry to generate one or more human-interpretable observables from the entry (Fig. 2, selecting various items & values for display in results search is interpreted as processing an entry; displaying the date along with the item and value is interpreted as a post-processing function to generate a human-interpretable observable (date associated with item/value), the applying the presentation state comprises applying the associated at least one post-processing function to the one or more entries to generate the human-interpretable one or more observables (Fig. 2, dates are applied to each instance of an item/value), and the visual representation is based on the one or more human-interpretable observables (the visual representation in Fig. 2 is based on the applied dates (observables)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weber/Martin/Reumann/Fors with these teachings of Fors, to associate each presentation state with a post-processing function to process an entry to generate a human-interpretable observable to display such that the visual representation is based on the generated human-interpretable observable, with the motivation of enabling the healthcare provider user to visualize a full context of a patient’s health ([0028]).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
Please note: When referencing page numbers of Applicant’s response, references are to page numbers as printed.
Claim Objections
The objections to Claim 17 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to Claim 17.
35 USC 101 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). The MPEP further describes that the "sub-grouping 'managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people' include[s] social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for providing information from an electronic medical record database. There is no social activity, teaching, or following rules or instructions described in claim 1. (Page 8)
Regarding (A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that regarding MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and “social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions”, this is not an all-inclusive list but rather examples of things that are included within the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract idea. As set out above in 101 analysis section, Examiner has shown which limitations are within the scope of the abstract idea. The limitations amount to managing personal behavior, e.g., identifying at least one code of a medical ontology…, determining one or more related codes in the medical ontology based on the medical ontology and the at least one code, parsing medical records to identify one or more entries in the medical records indicating one or more of the identified at least one code and the one or more related codes, ranking the one or more entries based on a number of references to the at least one code and a number of references to the one or more related codes included in each of the one or more entries; and providing the information of ranked entries are all personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider or other personnel working in the healthcare space; for example, a healthcare provider could identify a code and make a determination of one or more related codes in a medical ontology. Additional elements (e.g., “electronic” medical records) only amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g. using a computer to automate the process of providing information from medical records in a ranked order. Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.05(a), “mere automation of manual processes” does not automatically confer subject matter eligibility. Merely automating a process using computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities does not automatically confer subject matter eligibility. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), example (iii) under “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality”). This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 does not recite activity that can be interpreted as an interaction between people as it requires only a natural language input to output one or more relevant entries that may then be ranked and output. (Page 8)
Regarding (B), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see main 101 analysis section above. As explained in the preceding response to argument (A), the steps of claim 1 are all personal behaviors that may be performed by healthcare provider, e.g., a healthcare provider could receive a query, identify at least one code of a medical ontology based on the query, and determine one or more related codes in the medical ontology based on the medical ontology and the at least one code. An “interaction between people” is only one example; an “interaction between people” is not required for an abstract idea to be categorized as certain methods of organizing human activity. This argument is not persuasive.
The above notwithstanding, Applicants also respectfully submit that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific, practical application that provides a technical improvement to the field of computer-assisted providing of medical information. (Page 9)
Regarding (C), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent personal behaviors that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to identify a related medical ontology code, parse medical records to identify entries indicating the code and related codes, and provide a ranked list. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background describes a physician manually searching in an electronic health record or multiple PACS or re-examining prior studies to obtain answers to clinical histories of a patient under consideration as well as a physician manually going through all documents identified as potentially relevant to a patient (see Spec. Paras. [0004]-[0005]) – both of which are human tasks or “personal behaviors”. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Recitation of computing elements at a high level of generality (e.g., a computer-implemented method) only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Because the claim elements fall under a series of personal behaviors that a person or persons would follow to identify a related medical ontology code, parse medical records to identify entries indicating the code and related codes, and provide a ranked list, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding “practical application”, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to general-purpose computing devices (see Spec. Para. [0165], which discloses “The computing unit may be realized as a data processing system or as a part of a data processing system. Such a data processing system can, for example, comprise a cloud-computing system, a computer network, a computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone and/or the like. The computing unit can comprise hardware and/or software. The hardware can comprise, for example, one or more processors, one or more memories, and combinations thereof”; see also Para. [0185], discussing “computing unit” as one of any various types of processors; the processor may be part of a laptop or desktop computer) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine). Regarding the identified additional elements, while these additional elements implement the steps of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. (Note: for example, displaying data, e.g., displaying ranked entries, using a general purpose computing device display does not improve the display/monitor. It is operating as it normally operates). Operating a computing device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve another technology. As such, these additional elements do not provide a technological improvement and a practical application is not present. This argument is not persuasive.
Examiner further submits that any purported improvements (e.g., “addressing inefficiencies and inconsistencies in obtaining targeted retrieval of medical information”) maybe improvements to the abstract idea, but are not technological improvements as they have not been described as being problems caused by the technological environment to which the claim is confined. Please see 2106.04(d)(II) which states, “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h)”, and, see also MPEP 2106.05(a) which states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Applicant has not provided, nor can Examiner find evidence of, how any of the additional elements identified above in main 101 analysis section are providing an improvement over prior art systems. The additional elements identified above are understood to be computing components functioning in their normal operating capacity, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The above arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea since the claim at least improves another technology, namely medical informatics. See, MPEP § 2106.05(a). (Page 9)
Regarding (D), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to general-purpose computing devices (see Spec. Para. [0165], which discloses “The computing unit may be realized as a data processing system or as a part of a data processing system. Such a data processing system can, for example, comprise a cloud-computing system, a computer network, a computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone and/or the like. The computing unit can comprise hardware and/or software. The hardware can comprise, for example, one or more processors, one or more memories, and combinations thereof”; see also Para. [0185], discussing “computing unit” as one of any various types of processors; the processor may be part of a laptop or desktop computer) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine). Regarding the identified additional elements, while these additional elements implement the steps of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. (Note: for example, displaying data, e.g., displaying ranked entries, using a general purpose computing device display does not improve the display/monitor. It is operating as it normally operates). Operating a computing device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that other technology. As such, these additional elements do not provide a technological improvement and a practical application is not present. This argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons above, the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the applied reference to Reumann and para. [0005], Examiner submits that “a ranked list of the diagnosis codes, related procedure codes and secondary diagnosis codes and related secondary procedure codes, based on the relative occurrences of the past medical records” reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “ranking the one or more entries based on a number of references to the at least one code and a number of references to the one or more related codes included in each of the one or more entries” when viewed in combination with Weber/Martin. As stated by Applicant, Reumann teaches on ranking a list of codes based on “relative occurrence” (page 11). As shown above with respect to Claim 1, Weber already teaches “parsing the EMR database to identify one or more entries in the EMR database indicating one or more of the at least one [concept] and the one or more related [concepts], where Martin teaches on “codes”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “parsing the EMR… to identify one or more entries indicating one of the at least one code or the one or more related code” is understood to include parsing an EMR to identify a code or a related code, e.g., where a concept/code is the entry. As taught by Weber, the entries correspond to a concept (e.g., code when combined with Martin). Reumann teaches on ranking based on relative occurrences in past medical records. Examiner submits that the “single medical record” of Reumann as cited to by Applicant is irrelevant in the scope of the instant claim. Reumann teaches on ranking multiple codes (e.g., entries when viewed in combination with Weber) based on occurrence, and the combination teaches on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant limitation as presented. Regarding Applicant’s remarks that Reumann does not teach on “displaying” the ranked entries, Examiner respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that “receiving … a ranked list…” would amount to displaying the list in a computer-implemented system. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-20 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20190189253 A1, teaching on a method for verifying a medical condition by parsing patient EMR data to identify instance of a medical code(s) and related concepts
US Publication 20200111545 A1, teaching on implementation of a patient summary generation engine which parses a patient’s EMR to extract a plurality of instances of medical concepts
US Publication 20210319859 A1, teaching on a system for augmented coding which queries a knowledge graph to search for related codes in a medical record and outputs a ranked list
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682