DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 10/23/2023. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent claims.
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) submitted on 10/23/2023 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a memory unit,” “a text receiving unit,” and “a processing unit” in claim 13 and “an output unit” and “a text input unit” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 9 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a graph” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 5 of the same claim).
Claim 4:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “relationships” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 9 of parent claim 1).
Line 2 also improperly reintroduces the limitation “annotated data elements” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 5 of parent claim 1).
Claim 5:
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “relationships” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 9 of parent claim 1).
Claim 7:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “semantic connectors” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 1).
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “relationships” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 9 of parent claim 1).
Claim 8:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “text” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of parent claim 1).
Claim 10:
Line 3 recites “the result,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13:
Line 13 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a graph” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 11 of the same claim).
Claim 14 is replete with double inclusion/improper reintroduction issues. Virtually every single introduced term/limitation below line 4 had already been introduced in parent claim 13 (including the terms: text, a plurality of data elements, semantic connectors, a graph, annotated data elements, medical knowledge bases, medical vocabulary, medical ontology, medical statistics, relationships, a graph (again), a plurality of data structures, an order criterion, and a structured text).
Claim 15:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “steps” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established earlier in line 3 of the same claim).
Line 11 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a graph” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 7 of the same claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim 15 recites a “computer program product {…} which is stored on a non-volatile medium” which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product as claimed covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
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 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim limitations “a memory unit” and “a text receiving unit” in claim 13, and “an output unit” and “a text input unit” in claim 14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the respective functions. In other words, (i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-7, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0108443 (hereinafter “Li”).
As to independent claims 1, 13, and 15, Li shows a computer-implemented method [¶ 02], a computer system [fig. 4], and a concomitant computer program product [¶ 65] for structuring a medical report text comprising:
receiving text and parsing the received text to obtain a plurality of data elements, connected by semantic connectors [text is received and parsed to obtain a plurality of data elements (entities and/or attributes), connected by semantic connectors (relationships between entities/attributes) | ¶ 04];
generating a graph of annotated data elements [generating a medical knowledge graph of annotated/“validated” data elements (fig. 2)], the generating comprising:
annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics [annotating/validating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases/sources, each of the medical knowledge bases/sources being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics (¶¶ 35-38 & 51)]; and
establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships [relationships between the annotated data elements are established such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships (¶¶ 35-38, 60, & 64)];
embedding the generated graph into one of a plurality of target structures, each of the target structures having an order criterion, to provide a structured text comprising the annotated data elements ordered according to the order criterion of the one of the plurality of target structures, into which the generated graph has been embedded [the generated graph is embedded into one of a plurality of target structures (like a graph (¶ 50) or tree (¶ 40) structure), each of the target structures having an order criterion (like the hierarchical/parent-child order of the tree/graph structure (¶¶ 11-12, 40, & 50)), to provide a structured text comprising the annotated data elements ordered according to the order criterion of the one of the plurality of target structures, into which the generated graph has been embedded (¶¶ 38-41, 50, & 57-58)].
As to dependent claim 2, Li further shows:
outputting the structured text, wherein the outputting is to a human-readable output of an output device or to a database for machine-based data analysis [the outputting of the structured text may be to a human-readable output of an output device (¶¶ 57-58) or to a database for machine-based data analysis (¶¶ 34 & 38-40)].
As to dependent claim 3, Li further shows:
wherein the established relationships between data elements are represented as edges between nodes of the generated graph [the established relationships between data elements are represented as edges between nodes of the generated graph (fig. 2; ¶¶ 11-12 & 41)].
As to dependent claim 4, Li further shows:
wherein establishing relationships between annotated data elements is based at least on the medical knowledge bases, the established relationship being indicative at least of medical knowledge [establishing relationships between annotated data elements is based at least on the medical knowledge bases/“sources,” the established relationship being indicative at least of medical knowledge (¶¶ 35-38 & 51)].
As to dependent claim 5, Li further shows:
wherein, in the establishing relationships between annotated data elements, one or more of the data elements are matched to one or more nodes of the medical knowledge bases and edges relating to said one or more nodes are extracted and established as relationships of the one or more data elements [in the establishing relationships between annotated data elements, one or more of the data elements are matched to one or more nodes of the medical knowledge bases and edges relating to said one or more nodes are extracted and established as relationships of the one or more data elements (fig. 2; ¶¶ 11-12, 41, & 52-54)].
As to dependent claim 6, Li further shows:
wherein the establishing relationships between annotated data elements is based at least on the received text, the established relationship being indicative at least of semantic relationships between the data elements [the establishing relationships between annotated data elements is based at least on the received text, the established relationship being indicative at least of semantic relationships between the data elements (¶¶ 31-34)].
As to dependent claim 7, Li further shows:
wherein, in the establishing relationships between annotated data elements, one or more of the data elements are set as nodes and semantic connectors, which connect the data elements in the parsed text, are set as edges and established as relationships of the one or more data elements [in the establishing relationships between annotated data elements, one or more of the data elements are set as nodes and semantic connectors, which connect the data elements in the parsed text, are set as edges and established as relationships of the one or more data elements (fig. 2; ¶¶ 11-12, 41, & 52-54)].
As to dependent claim 9, Li further shows:
wherein the plurality of target structures are selected from one or more of decision trees, ordered graphs, or hierarchical graphs [the plurality of target structures are selected from one or more of decision trees, ordered graphs, or hierarchical graphs (fig. 2; ¶¶ 11-12, 40, & 50)].
As to dependent claim 12, Li further shows:
wherein the medical knowledge bases comprise semantic networks [the medical knowledge bases comprise semantic networks (¶¶ 35-38 & 51)].
As to dependent claim 14, Li further shows:
an output unit configured to output the structured text [the structured text may be output by an output unit (¶¶ 34, 38-40 & 57-58)], and a text input unit configured to receive user input [a text input unit may receive user input (¶¶ 55-57)], wherein the processing unit is further configured to carry out a method [] including steps comprising: receiving text and parsing the received text to obtain a plurality of data elements, connected by semantic connectors: generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships: embedding the generated graph into one of a plurality of target structures, each of the target structures having an order criterion, to provide a structured text comprising the annotated data elements ordered according to the order criterion of the one of the plurality of target structures, into which the generated graph has been embedded [See the steps above and corresponding mappings for claims 1, 13, and 15.].
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0052444 (hereinafter “Roberge”).
As to dependent claim 8, Li shows pre-processing text in general (see Li: ¶¶ 03-04), but it does not appear to explicitly recite doing so “such that text is received by: speech-recognizing audio data; image-processing picture data; or transcription-processing of video data” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Roberge shows:
performing a pre-processing of at least one of the following, such that text is received by: speech-recognizing audio data; image-processing picture data; or transcription-processing of video data [“The present invention pertains to a system and methods that include a set of template hierarchies used to match words of an utterance to terms of a template in order to select the best matching template corresponding to the utterance. This is referred generally herein as mapping an utterance to a template.” (¶ 44)
“{…} medical reports are used for most of the examples describing the present invention herein {…}” (¶ 46)
“For purposes of this application, the term “utterance” refers to a word or sequence of words spoken by a user. An utterance is usually spoken aloud and the spoken speech can be converted to text by speech recognition software. {…}” (¶ 48)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Li and Roberge before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Roberge’s speech-recognizing techniques into Li. The rationale for doing so would have been “allowing the user to perform work without looking away from the subject to which the utterance may pertain” (Roberge: ¶ 45) and/or “to allow a user to easily verbalize information including data through utterances pertaining to a particular subject while maintaining visual focus on the subject or on another subject, for example, a radiologist can look away from the display device while utilizing the system. The user enters the spoken words or utterances into the system through an input device, upon which the system ultimately provides a narrative text or report layout and format in an efficient manner” (Roberge: ¶ 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li and Roberge in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 8.
As to dependent claim 10, Li generally shows matching the generated graph to a tree structure and/or directed/hierarchical graph structure (Li: ¶¶ 11-12, 40, & 50). However, Li does not appear to explicitly recite “matching the generated graph to each of the target structures and selecting one of the plurality of target structures based on the result of the matching” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Roberge shows:
wherein embedding of the generated graph comprises matching the generated graph to each of the target structures and selecting one of the plurality of target structures based on the result of the matching [Roberge shows matching its generated graph equivalent (a hierarchical tree (¶¶ 51-52)) to each of the target structures (target template structures) and selecting one of the plurality of target/template structures based on the result of the matching (e.g. “a template is selected based on how well the words in the utterance match the structure, semantics and content of the template” (¶ 55)). | See ¶¶ 49-55.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Li and Roberge before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Roberge’s structure matching techniques into Li. The rationale for doing so would have been “to match the words of a spoken utterance against the terms in a template hierarchy in such a way as to allow for normal variations in human expression such as differences in word order and grammatical form, incomplete phrasings, extraneous terms, synonymous terms, and multi-term phrasings” (Roberge: ¶ 74). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li and Roberge (hereinafter, the “Li-Roberge” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 10.
As to dependent claim 11, Li-Roberge further shows:
wherein the matching comprises exploring multiple paths or multiple hierarchy levels of a search space tree using a search tree algorithm [Both Li and Roberge show in their own way exploring multiple paths or multiple hierarchy levels of a search space tree using a search tree algorithm (Li: ¶¶ 22, 40, & 55-58 | Roberge: ¶¶ 58-59 & 71).].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Shah; Nehal et al.
US 20160132648 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
Guo; Yufan et al.
US 20180107801 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
Allen; Corville O. et al.
US 20180075011 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
Zhao; Qing et al.
US 20220277858 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
Childers; Zach W. et al.
US 20190073352 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
DECKERT; Dirk-Andre et al.
US 20210407694 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
SHARMA; Vishakha et al.
US 20220301670 A1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
Shen; April Tuesday et al.
US 10387575 B1
“generating a graph of annotated data elements, the generating comprising: annotating each of the obtained data elements using medical knowledge bases, each of the medical knowledge bases being indicative of medical vocabulary or medical ontology or medical statistics; and establishing relationships between the annotated data elements such that a graph is generated, the graph comprising the annotated data elements connected by the relationships”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights