DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 11/30/2023. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-12 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/30/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: in claim 1, “standard management device is configured to: receive…”; in claim 2, “specification collector configured to receive… ,” specification parser configured to parse… ,” and “specification standardizer configured to store…”; in claim 3, “term mapper configured to generate… ,” “vocabulary mapper configured to generate… ,” and “specification mapper configured to generate…”; in claim 4, “term manager configured to receive… ,” “vocabulary manager configured to receive… ,” and “specification manager configured to receive...” No corresponding structure is recited in the specification for these limitations.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations in claim 1, “standard management device is configured to: receive…”; in claim 2, “specification collector configured to receive… ,” specification parser configured to parse… ,” and “specification standardizer configured to store…”; in claim 3, “term mapper configured to generate… ,” “vocabulary mapper configured to generate… ,” and “specification mapper configured to generate… ”; in claim 4, “term manager configured to receive… ,” “vocabulary manager configured to receive… ,” and “specification manager configured to receive…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claims are considered vague as to what the limitations recited above are referring to because the specification does include a structure that performs the function of the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “(a) receive a first request indicating a collection operation of first standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user”, “(b) parse the first standard information to generate parsing information”, “(c) generate mapping information indicating parsing units based on the parsing information”, “(d) generate standard analysis information based on the parsing information and the mapping information”, “(e) store the standard analysis information”, “(f) receive a second request indicating a mapping operation of second standard information and third standard information among the plurality of standard information from the user”, “(g) generate relationship information indicating similarity between the second standard mapping information and the third standard mapping information”, and “(h) store the relationship information.” Limitations (a) – (h) recite mental processes that may be practically performed in the mind using pen and paper. For example, limitation (a) can be done by someone receiving a request to collect information from a user. Limitation (b) can be done by someone parsing standard information to determine parsing information. Limitation (c) can be done by someone determining mapping information based on parsing information. Limitation (d) can be done by someone analyzing parsing information and mapping information to determine standard analysis information. Limitation (e) can be done by someone writing down information. Limitation (f) can be done by someone receiving a request from a user to map second standard information and third standard information. Limitation (g) can be done by someone determining relationship information between different standard mapping information. Limitation (h) can be done by someone writing down relationship information. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions to “receive,” “parse,” “generate,” and “store” encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by evaluation and judgement using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “(i) by the standard harvester”, “(j) by the standard mapper”, and “(k) by the standard repository.” Limitations (a) - (h) are recited as being performed by an electronic device. In limitations (a) and (f), the electronic device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. In limitations (b) – (e) and (g) - (h), the electronic device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Further, the limitations (i) – (k) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The different models recited in limitations (i) – (k) are used to perform limitations (a) – (h) without placing any limits on how the models function. Rather, these models only recite the outcomes and do not include any details on how the outcomes are accomplished. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of an electronic device to perform limitations (a) – (h) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “(a) receiving a request indicating a collection operation of first standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user”, “(b) parsing the first standard information to generate parsing information”, “(c) generating mapping information indicating parsing units based on the parsing information”, “(d) generating standard analysis information based on the parsing information and the mapping information”, and “(e) storing the standard analysis information.” Limitations (a) – (e) recite mental processes that may be practically performed in the mind using pen and paper. For example, limitation (a) can be done by someone receiving a request to collect information from a user. Limitation (b) can be done by someone parsing standard information to determine parsing information. Limitation (c) can be done by someone determining mapping information based on parsing information. Limitation (d) can be done by someone analyzing parsing information and mapping information to determine standard analysis information. Limitation (e) can be done by someone writing down standard analysis information. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions of “receiving,” “parsing,” “generating,” and “storing” encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by evaluation and judgement using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “(f) by the standard harvester”, “(g) by the standard mapper”, and “(h) by the standard repository.” Limitations (a) - (e) are recited as being performed by an electronic device. In limitation (a), the electronic device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. In limitations (b) – (e), the electronic device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Further, the limitations (f) – (h) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The different models recited in limitations (f) – (h) are used to perform limitations (a) – (e) without placing any limits on how the models function. Rather, these models only recite the outcomes and do not include any details on how the outcomes are accomplished. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of an electronic device to perform limitations (a) – (e) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “(a) receiving, by the standard mapper, a request indicating a mapping operation of first standard information and second standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user”, “(b) generating relationship information indicating similarity between the first standard information and the second standard information”, and “(c) storing the relationship information.” Limitations (a) – (c) recite mental processes that may be practically performed in the mind using pen and paper. For example, limitation (a) can be done by someone receiving a request to map standard information from a user. Limitation (b) can be done by someone determine similarities between different standard information and generating relationship information. Limitation (c) can be done by someone writing down relationship information. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions of “receiving,” “generating,” and “storing” encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by evaluation and judgement using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “(d) by the standard mapper” and “(e) by the standard repository.” Limitations (a) - (c) are recited as being performed by an electronic device. In limitation (a), the electronic device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. In limitations (b) – (c), the electronic device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Further, the limitations (d) – (e) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The different models recited in limitations (d) – (e) are used to perform limitations (a) – (c) without placing any limits on how the models function. Rather, these models only recite the outcomes and do not include any details on how the outcomes are accomplished. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of an electronic device to perform limitations (a) – (c) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Similarly, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-12 include additional steps that are considered abstract ideas because they fail to provide meaningful significance that goes beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and using the computer to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 2 reads on someone receiving a request from a user, receiving standard information, parsing the standard information, and writing down standard analysis information using parsing and mapping information.
Claim 3 reads on someone determining terms, vocabularies, and specifications from different standard information, determining the relationship between the different terms vocabularies, and specifications based on their similarity, and writing down that information to store it.
Claim 4 reads on someone receiving and writing down term relationship information, vocabulary relationship information, and specification relationship information.
Claims 5 and 8 read on someone parsing standard information and determining parsing units based on the number of terms.
Claim 6 recite details on formats of the collected data.
Claim 9 reads on someone determining terms, vocabularies, and specifications as part of the standard analysis information.
Claim 11 reads on reads on someone determining terms, vocabularies, and specifications from different standard information and determining the relationship between the different terms vocabularies, and specifications based on their similarity.
Claim 12 reads on someone determining vocabulary relationship information between different standard information using terms included in the vocabulary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Namboodiri et al. (US 20200294633 A1; hereinafter referred to as Namboodiri).
Regarding claim 1 Namboodiri teaches: an electronic device comprising: a standard organization set including a plurality of standard information ([0034] The data storage 243 may store, among other data, EMR objects 222, schema rules 224, and code maps 226. The EMR objects 222 represents the electronic medical record of patients stored in a file format such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Extensible Markup Language (XML), etc. The different file formats can be considered standard information.); and a standard management device including a standard harvester, a standard mapper, and a standard repository ([0004] system includes one or more processors and a memory storing instructions which when executed cause the one or more processors to receive, from a first health care server, an electronic medical record in a first data format, parse one or more elements of the electronic medical record in the first data format, map the one or more elements of the electronic medical record from the first data format to an intermediate data format), wherein the standard management device is configured to: receive, by the standard harvester, a first request indicating a collection operation of first standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 may retrieve an EMR object in a source data format, such as JSON format from the data storage 243. The EMR object may be retrieved in response to a request for transferring the EMR object to an external health care server of a different health care organization);
parse, by the standard harvester, the first standard information to generate parsing information ([0041] The data structure mapper 203 parses a structure of the data object and identifies one or more elements in the data object);
generate, by the standard mapper, mapping information indicating parsing units based on the parsing information ([0042] The data object may be an incoming EMR object formatted in a destination data format (e.g., HL7 v 2.x) of the external health care server and converted to an intermediate data format (e.g., XML file) by the data format converter 213 described in detail below. The data structure mapper 203 may parse the received data object and map the parsed elements of the data object from intermediate data format to the source data format using the schema mapping);
generate, by the standard harvester, standard analysis information based on the parsing information and the mapping information ([0051] the semantic analyzer 211 may perform semantic analysis on the transformed data object from the data structure mapper 203. The semantic analysis may include type checking to determine whether the data types are converted in a manner that is consistent with their definition);
and store, by the standard repository, the standard analysis information ([0042] the data structure mapper 203 reorganizes the parsed elements of the EMR object from standard XML data format into the JSON data format. The data structure mapper 203 stores the EMR data object mapped into the source data format in the EMR objects 222 of the data storage 243), and wherein the standard management device is configured to: receive, by the standard mapper, a second request indicating a mapping operation of second standard information and third standard information among the plurality of standard information from the user ([0039] the controller 201 receives, via the communication unit 241, a request to transfer a patient's EMR to another hospital from a client device 115 operated by a user and sends the request to the data structure mapper);
generate, by the standard mapper, relationship information indicating similarity between the second standard mapping information and the third standard mapping information ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 retrieves schema rules 224 from the data storage 243 for parsing the data object. The schema rules 224 may include one or more schema mappings and XML schemas. A schema mapping may be a specification defining a relationship or correspondence between the elements of the schemas of source data format (e.g., JSON) and intermediate data format (e.g., XML));
and store, by the standard repository, the relationship information ([0034] The data storage 243 may store, among other data, EMR objects 222, schema rules 224, and code maps 226. The EMR objects 222 represents the electronic medical record of patients stored in a file format such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Extensible Markup Language (XML), etc. The schema rules 224 represent a set of rules for parsing and mapping a structure or format of a file, for example, an XML document into another structure or format, for example, a valid JSON document. The schema rules 224 may include schema mappings that define how data is to be converted between the schemas of a source data format and a target data format).
Regarding claim 2, Namboodiri teaches: the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the standard harvester includes: a specification collector configured to receive the first request from the user ([0039] a request to transfer a patient's EMR to another hospital from a client device 115 operated by a user and sends the request to the data structure mapper 203.) and receive the first standard information from the standard organization set depending on the first request ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 may retrieve an EMR object in a source data format, such as JSON format from the data storage 243. The EMR object may be retrieved in response to a request for transferring the EMR object to an external health care server of a different health care organization);
a specification parser configured to parse the first standard information to generate the parsing information ([0041] The data structure mapper 203 parses a structure of the data object and identifies one or more elements in the data object), receive the mapping information from the standard mapper ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 retrieves schema rules 224 from the data storage 243 for parsing the data object. The schema rules 224 may include one or more schema mappings and XML schemas), and generate the standard analysis information based on the parsing information and the mapping information ([0041] The data structure mapper 203 maps the parsed elements in the data object from the source data format to an intermediate data format using the schema mapping);
and a specification standardizer configured to store the standard analysis information into the standard repository ([0042] The data structure mapper 203 may parse the received data object and map the parsed elements of the data object from intermediate data format to the source data format using the schema mapping. For example, the data structure mapper 203 reorganizes the parsed elements of the EMR object from standard XML data format into the JSON data format. The data structure mapper 203 stores the EMR data object mapped into the source data format in the EMR objects 222 of the data storage 243).
Regarding claim 6, Namboodiri teaches: the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the standard organization set includes a first standard organization and a second standard organization, wherein the first standard organization includes fourth standard information ([0034] The schema rules 224 represent a set of rules for parsing and mapping a structure or format of a file, for example, an XML document into another structure or format, for example, a valid JSON document. The fourth standard information can be JSON information.), wherein the second standard organization includes fifth standard information ([0034] The schema rules 224 represent a set of rules for parsing and mapping a structure or format of a file, for example, an XML document into another structure or format, for example, a valid JSON document. The fifth standard information can be XML information.), and wherein the fourth standard information and the fifth standard information support the same data standard ([0041] For example, the data structure mapper 203 reorganizes the parsed elements of the EMR object from JSON data format into the standard XML data format. In some embodiments, the data structure mapper 203 may access XML schema definition (XSD) in the XML schemas and check the mapped data object in the intermediate XML data format against XSD to determine if it is valid), and a data format of the fourth standard information is different from that of the fifth standard information ([0041] A schema mapping may be a specification defining a relationship or correspondence between the elements of the schemas of source data format (e.g., JSON) and intermediate data format (e.g., XML)).
Regarding claim 7, Namboodiri teaches: a method of operating an electronic device including a standard organization set including a plurality of standard information ([0034] The data storage 243 may store, among other data, EMR objects 222, schema rules 224, and code maps 226. The EMR objects 222 represents the electronic medical record of patients stored in a file format such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Extensible Markup Language (XML), etc. The different file formats can be considered standard information.), a standard harvester, a standard mapper, and a standard repository ([0004] system includes one or more processors and a memory storing instructions which when executed cause the one or more processors to receive, from a first health care server, an electronic medical record in a first data format, parse one or more elements of the electronic medical record in the first data format, map the one or more elements of the electronic medical record from the first data format to an intermediate data format), the method comprising: receiving, by the standard harvester, a request indicating a collection operation of first standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 may retrieve an EMR object in a source data format, such as JSON format from the data storage 243. The EMR object may be retrieved in response to a request for transferring the EMR object to an external health care server of a different health care organization);
parsing, by the standard harvester, the first standard information to generate parsing information ([0041] The data structure mapper 203 parses a structure of the data object and identifies one or more elements in the data object);
generating, by the standard mapper, mapping information indicating parsing units based on the parsing information ([0042] The data object may be an incoming EMR object formatted in a destination data format (e.g., HL7 v 2.x) of the external health care server and converted to an intermediate data format (e.g., XML file) by the data format converter 213 described in detail below. The data structure mapper 203 may parse the received data object and map the parsed elements of the data object from intermediate data format to the source data format using the schema mapping);
generating, by the standard harvester, standard analysis information based on the parsing information and the mapping information ([0051] the semantic analyzer 211 may perform semantic analysis on the transformed data object from the data structure mapper 203. The semantic analysis may include type checking to determine whether the data types are converted in a manner that is consistent with their definition);
and storing, by the standard repository, the standard analysis information ([0042] the data structure mapper 203 reorganizes the parsed elements of the EMR object from standard XML data format into the JSON data format. The data structure mapper 203 stores the EMR data object mapped into the source data format in the EMR objects 222 of the data storage 243).
Regarding claim 10, Namboodiri teaches: a method of operating an electronic device including a standard organization set, a standard mapper, and a standard repository ([0004] system includes one or more processors and a memory storing instructions which when executed cause the one or more processors to receive, from a first health care server, an electronic medical record in a first data format, parse one or more elements of the electronic medical record in the first data format, map the one or more elements of the electronic medical record from the first data format to an intermediate data format), the method comprising: receiving, by the standard mapper, a request indicating a mapping operation of first standard information and second standard information among the plurality of standard information from a user ([0039] the controller 201 receives, via the communication unit 241, a request to transfer a patient's EMR to another hospital from a client device 115 operated by a user and sends the request to the data structure mapper 203);
generating, by the standard mapper, relationship information indicating similarity between the first standard information and the second standard information ([0041] the data structure mapper 203 retrieves schema rules 224 from the data storage 243 for parsing the data object. The schema rules 224 may include one or more schema mappings and XML schemas. A schema mapping may be a specification defining a relationship or correspondence between the elements of the schemas of source data format (e.g., JSON) and intermediate data format (e.g., XML));
and storing, by the standard repository, the relationship information ([0034] The data storage 243 may store, among other data, EMR objects 222, schema rules 224, and code maps 226. The EMR objects 222 represents the electronic medical record of patients stored in a file format such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Extensible Markup Language (XML), etc. The schema rules 224 represent a set of rules for parsing and mapping a structure or format of a file, for example, an XML document into another structure or format, for example, a valid JSON document. The schema rules 224 may include schema mappings that define how data is to be converted between the schemas of a source data format and a target data format).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namboodiri in view of Huang et al. (US 20190102380 A1; hereinafter referred to as Huang) and in further view of Rejndrup (US 20090083218 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Namboodiri teaches: the electronic device of claim 1. Namboodiri does not explicitly, but Huang discloses: wherein the standard mapper includes: a term mapper configured to generate term relationship information indicating similarity between terms of the second standard information and terms of the third standard information ([0040] method 300 calculates a Jaccard similarity for the received code against all codes in the second code set. More specifically, for a set A of words in the description of the received code, the Jaccard similarity J(A, B) of the set A to a set B of words in a description for a code in the second code set is defined as the size of the intersection of the sets divided by the size of the union of the sets), and store the term relationship information into the standard repository… ([0063] the method also learns semantically close words from human expert identified mapped documents and stores the relationship in word relationship graph).
Namboodiri and Huang are considered analogous in the field of semantic analysis. 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 Namboodiri to combine the teachings of Huang because doing so would allow for specific terms in different standard information to be efficiently mapped to each other by using a word relationship graph (Huang [0029] The word relationship graph links related terminology to each other, thereby enabling a semantic mapping between code sets. For example, a description for a first code in a first code set may use the term “education” while a description for a second code in a second code set may use the term “counseling” to describe the same concept. Mechanically mapping code descriptions to each other may overlook such semantic relationships, and so method 100 identifies such semantic connections to develop the word relationship graph).
Namboodiri in view of Huang does not explicitly, but Rejndrup teaches: a vocabulary mapper configured to generate vocabulary relationship information indicating similarity between vocabularies of the second standard information and vocabularies of the third standard information ([0042] the term "Acute Pancreatitis" is selected from the content table 22 shown in FIG. 1. Relationships between this term "Acute Pancreatitis" and other terms in the content table 22 are defined. A broad scope term link 408 is created and defined to bind the term "Acute Pancreatitis" with "Abnormal Distension."), and store the vocabulary relationship information into the standard repository ([0033] The relationships or relations between the terms used by the filter dictionary 23 are stored in the relation table 22. In one embodiment, the relationships between the terms used by the filter dictionary 23 and the base dictionary 21 are stored in the relation table 22 as well);
and a specification mapper configured to generate specification relationship information indicating similarity between specifications of the second standard information and specifications of the third standard information ([0046] consider the term "Acid-base disorders". In the base dictionary, relationship links from the term "Acid-base disorders" to its child terms "Metabolic acidosis (excl diabetic acidosis)" and "Hyperlactacidaemia" can be established, as the terms are known to have certain relevant relations), and store the specification relationship information into the standard repository ([0032] The content table 20 stores the clinical terms and the relation table 22 stores the relations defining associations between the clinical terms), and wherein a vocabulary includes two or more terms ([0028] Relationship links from the term "Acid-base disorders" to "Metabolic acidosis (excl diabetic acidosis)" and "Hyperlactacidaemia" can be established, as the concepts are known to have certain relevant relations), and a specification includes two or more vocabularies ([0028] Relationship links from the term "Acid-base disorders" to "Metabolic acidosis (excl diabetic acidosis)" and "Hyperlactacidaemia" can be established, as the concepts are known to have certain relevant relations).
Namboodiri, Huang, and Rejndrup are considered analogous in the field of semantic analysis. 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 Namboodiri and Huang to combine the teachings of Rejndrup because doing so would allow for terms of different lengths to be linked to each other, leading to better mapping between different standards (Rejndrup [0044] Since there can be many different terms that may be indicative of this condition, a single term search may not lead to very useful search results. The disclosed embodiments allow the user to take advantage of certain relationships that are defined between and among different terms and categories of terms as shown in FIG. 5, for example).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Namboodiri, Huang, and Rejndrup teaches: the electronic device of claim 3. Rejndrup further teaches: a term manager configured to receive the term relationship information from the term mapper and store the term relationship information ([0032] The content table 20 stores the clinical terms and the relation table 22 stores the relations defining associations between the clinical terms. The filter terminologies table 23 stores groupings of terms and relations taken from the content table 20);
a vocabulary manager configured to receive the vocabulary relationship information from the vocabulary mapper and store the vocabulary relationship information ([0042] the term "Acute Pancreatitis" is selected from the content table 22 shown in FIG. 1. Relationships between this term "Acute Pancreatitis" and other terms in the content table 22 are defined. A broad scope term link 408 is created and defined to bind the term "Acute Pancreatitis" with "Abnormal Distension.");
and a specification manager configured to receive the specification relationship information from the specification mapper and store the specification relationship information ([0047] the term "Lactic acidosis" is added to the filter dictionary and the mapping between the term "Lactic acidosis" and the two base terminology "Hyperlactacidaemia" and "Blood lactic acid increased" is created).
Regarding claim 11, Namboodiri teaches: the method of claim 10. Namboodiri does not explicitly, but Huang teaches: wherein the generating, by the standard mapper, of the relationship information indicating the similarity between the first standard information and the second standard information includes: generating term relationship information indicating similarity between terms of the first standard information and terms of the second standard information… ([0040] method 300 calculates a Jaccard similarity for the received code against all codes in the second code set. More specifically, for a set A of words in the description of the received code, the Jaccard similarity J(A, B) of the set A to a set B of words in a description for a code in the second code set is defined as the size of the intersection of the sets divided by the size of the union of the sets).
Namboodiri and Huang are considered analogous in the field of semantic analysis. 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 Namboodiri to combine the teachings of Huang because doing so would allow for specific terms in different standard information to be efficiently mapped to each other by using a word relationship graph (Huang [0029] The word relationship graph links related terminology to each other, thereby enabling a semantic mapping between code sets. For example, a description for a first code in a first code set may use the term “education” while a description for a second code in a second code set may use the term “counseling” to describe the same concept. Mechanically mapping code descriptions to each other may overlook such semantic relationships, and so method 100 identifies such semantic connections to develop the word relationship graph).
Namboodiri in view of Huang does not explicitly, but Rejndrup teaches: generating vocabulary relationship information indicating similarity between vocabularies of the first standard information and vocabularies of the second standard information ([0042] consider the term "Acute Pancreatitis" 402, which is linked to or stored in the filter dictionary 401. In this example, the term "Acute Pancreatitis" is selected from the content table 22 shown in FIG. 1. Relationships between this term "Acute Pancreatitis" and other terms in the content table 22 are defined. A broad scope term link 408 is created and defined to bind the term "Acute Pancreatitis" with "Abnormal Distension.");
and generating specification relationship information indicating similarity between specifications of the first standard information and specifications of the second standard information ([0012] defining a plurality of terms for use in conjunction with a study where the terms are stored according to a series of relations and the relations corresponding to the terms indicate an association from a term to at least one other of the plurality of terms), and wherein a vocabulary includes two or more terms ([0028] Relationship links from the term "Acid-base disorders" to "Metabolic acidosis (excl diabetic acidosis)" and "Hyperlactacidaemia" can be established, as the concepts are known to have certain relevant relations), a specification includes two or more vocabularies ([0028] Relationship links from the term "Acid-base disorders" to "Metabolic acidosis (excl diabetic acidosis)" and "Hyperlactacidaemia" can be established, as the concepts are known to have certain relevant relations), and the relationship information includes the term relationship information, the vocabulary relationship information, and the specification relationship information ([0032] the content table 20 and the relation table 22 can be combined to form the base dictionary 21. The content table 20 stores the clinical terms and the relation table 22 stores the relations defining associations between the clinical terms).
Namboodiri, Huang, and Rejndrup are considered analogous in the field of semantic analysis. 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 Namboodiri and Huang to combine the teachings of Rejndrup because doing so would allow for terms of different lengths to be linked to each other, leading to better mapping between different standards (Rejndrup [0044] Since there can be many different terms that may be indicative of this condition, a single term search may not lead to very useful search results. The disclosed embodiments allow the user to take advantage of certain relationships that are defined between and among different terms and categories of terms as shown in FIG. 5, for example).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Namboodiri, Huang, and Rejndrup teaches: the method of claim 11. Rejndrup further teaches: wherein the generating of the vocabulary relationship information indicating the similarity between the vocabularies of the first standard information and the vocabularies of the second standard information includes: generating the vocabulary relationship information based on terms included in each of the vocabularies of the first standard information and terms included in each of the vocabularies of the second standard information ([0042] A narrow scope term link is defined between the term Acute Pancreatitis 402 in the filter dictionary 401 and the term "Cullen's Sign 406 in the base dictionary 403. The links 408 and 410 are