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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 38 recites “them ,” in lines 11-12 when it should most likely recite “them.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 38-57 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.
Claims 38, 52, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: a data structure transmission/reception step. For example, claim 38 recites “wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them” and it is not clear in the claims if transmission is actually occurring or if the data is being received by the system accessing it. To support this, Examiner directs Applicant to a limitation which precedes it which states “accessing one or more first data structures comprising”. Data structures are being accessed, but it is unclear in the claims if access means solely accessing or if it means access and transmission to the system for usage. The claims also do not outline what transmission is. Is it transmission from a machine which stores this data to the system for maintaining data in the claims? What is the transmission for and where is data being transmitted to? Is the data transmitted and then received elsewhere for usage? The claims are not totally clear and need to bridge this gap. This could partly be due to the recitation of transmission being inside of a “wherein” clause. Examiner is interpreting that the machine in the claims is storing this data and then it is sending this data after authorization is granted to the system in the claims, where access to this data includes both transmission and reception of this data from the machine (this would need support in the specification).
Claims 39-51 and 53-56 are rejected based on their dependencies on the independent claims.
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 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 38-51 are drawn to a system, claims 52-56 are drawn to a method, and claim 57 is drawn to a media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 38-57 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 38 recites a system for maintaining data integrity in a computerized health analysis platform, the system comprising:
a) at least one processor; and
b) a memory subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
1) accessing one or more first data structures comprising:
a plurality of first data sets regarding a plurality of entities, wherein each of the first data sets represents measurements of one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities, wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them, and
one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities;
2) determining a first subset of the first data sets based on the one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities;
3) generating, in one or more measurement units, a reference measurement range of the one or more physiological parameters of plurality of entities of the first subset of the first data sets;
4) accessing one or more second data structures comprising:
one or more second data sets regarding one or more target entities,
wherein the one or more second data sets represent one or more measurements of the one or more physiological parameters of the one or more target entities,
wherein the one or more target entities exhibit the one or more health-related attributes, and
wherein the one or more measurements of the one or more target entities lack a measurement unit or exhibit a mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit;
5) determining, based on the reference measurement range, the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit;
6) generating a third data structure representing the measurement unit; and
7) storing the third data structure in c) a hardware storage device.
Claim 38, in part, performing the steps of 1) accessing one or more first data structures comprising: a plurality of first data sets regarding a plurality of entities, wherein each of the first data sets represents measurements of one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities, wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them, and one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities, 2) determining a first subset of the first data sets based on the one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities, 3) generating, in one or more measurement units, a reference measurement range of the one or more physiological parameters of plurality of entities of the first subset of the first data sets, 4) accessing one or more second data structures comprising: one or more second data sets regarding one or more target entities, wherein the one or more second data sets represent one or more measurements of the one or more physiological parameters of the one or more target entities, wherein the one or more target entities exhibit the one or more health-related attributes, and wherein the one or more measurements of the one or more target entities lack a measurement unit or exhibit a mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit, 5) determining, based on the reference measurement range, the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit, 6) generating a third data structure representing the measurement unit, and 7) storing the third data structure. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could organize data. Independent claims 52 and 57 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 39-51 and 53-56 include all of the limitations of claims 38 and 52, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 39 adds the additional step of “providing the third data structure to the computerized health analysis platform”; claim 42 adds the additional steps of “comparing measurement values of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset of the first data sets with each other” and “converting different measurement units of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset to the one or more measurement units”; claims 43 and 53 add the additional steps of “comparing one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range” and “determining, based on the comparison, that the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit”; claims 44 and 54 add the additional steps of “determining a frequency of the one or more values of the one or more measurements that falls within the reference measurement range” and “determining the mislabeling error based on the frequency”; claims 45 and 55 add the additional step of “generating a score based on the comparison of the one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range”; claim 46 adds the additional step of “based on comparing the score to a threshold score, determining the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error”; claim 47 adds the additional step of “outputting the measurement unit to a display of a user interface”; claims 48 and 56 add the additional step of “generating, on the display of the user interface, an indication of whether one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit”; claim 49 adds the additional step of “generating a frequency graph that represents a relationship between a frequency of the one or more measurements and a plurality of measurement units”; claim 50 adds the additional step of “utilizing a machine learning classifier to determine the measurement unit, wherein the machine learning classifier is trained based on z-score probability and one or more of frequency features, wherein the frequency features comprise a unit frequency by study, a unit frequency by site, and a unit frequency by subject, and wherein utilizing a machine learning classifier to determine the measurement unit comprises utilizing logistic regression model to predict, based on the z-score probability derived from the reference measurement range and the frequency features, a binary outcome that indicates a possibility of the one or more measurements being measured in one or more respective measurement units”; and claim 51 adds the additional step of “modifying, based on the third data structure, the one or more second data sets, wherein modifying the one or more second data sets improves data integrity by preventing processing of incomplete or erroneous second data sets, and wherein the measurement unit (i) is incorporated into the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or (ii) replaces respective measurement unit of the one or more measurements that exhibits the mislabeling error”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 40-41 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 39-51 and 53-56 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 38 and 52 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) at least one processor, b) a memory subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, and c) a hardware storage device to perform the claimed steps.
The a) at least one processor, b) memory subsystem, and c) hardware storage device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0083] and [0098] where these components are recited as being generic, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) at least one processor, b) a memory subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, and c) a hardware storage device to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates and stores a data structure utilizing a) at least one processor, b) a memory subsystem, and c) a hardware storage device, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 38-57 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 38-41, 47, 51-52, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K.R. 2021/0084224 to Kim in view of U.S. 2020/0312429 Gourraud et al.
As per claim 38, Kim teaches a system for maintaining data integrity in a computerized health analysis platform, the system comprising:
--at least one processor; (see: FIG. 1 and paragraph [0029] where there is a smart mobile terminal. This has a processor) and
--a memory subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, (see: FIG. 1 and paragraph [0029] where there is a smart mobile terminal. This has a memory) the memory subsystem storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
--accessing one or more first data structures (see: paragraph [0029] and FIG. 1 where there is accessing of data from a plurality of databases 41, 42, and 43. Also see: paragraph [0015] where there is accessing of data from a similar group of individuals) comprising:
--a plurality of first data sets regarding a plurality of entities, (see: paragraph [0015] where there is accessing of data from a similar group of individuals (plurality of entities). Also see: paragraph [0072]) wherein each of the first data sets represents measurements of one or more physiological parameters of the plurality of entities, (see: paragraph [0023] where there is physical information (physiological parameters) for the data sets) and
--one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities; (see: paragraph [0013] where there are various variables (attributes) for this data)
--accessing one or more second data structures (see: paragraph [0029] and FIG. 1 where there is accessing of data from a plurality of databases 41, 42, and 43. Also see: paragraph [0015] where there is accessing of data from a similar group of individuals) comprising:
--one or more second data sets regarding one or more target entities, (see: paragraph [0015] where there is accessing of data from a similar group of individuals)
--wherein the one or more second data sets represent one or more measurements of the one or more physiological parameters of the one or more target entities, (see: paragraph [0023] where there is physical information (physiological parameters) for the data sets)
--wherein the one or more target entities exhibit the one or more health-related attributes, (see: paragraph [0013] where there are various variables (attributes) for this data) and
--wherein the one or more measurements of the one or more target entities lack a measurement unit or exhibit a mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit; (see: paragraphs [0015] and [0024] where there is missing data for the customer (target entity))
--determining the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit; (see: paragraph [0036] where there is a determination that certain data (measurement units) are missing)
--generating a third data structure representing the measurement unit; (see: paragraphs [0015] and [0065] where a third data structure is being generated and it is the corrected version of the data with the missing data) and
--storing the third data structure in a hardware storage device (see: paragraph [0091] where the corrected data is being used to make a prediction. This data must be stored, even if temporarily, in order to make this determination).
Kim may not further, specifically teach:
1) --wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them;
2) --determining a first subset of the first data sets based on the one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities;
3) --generating, in one or more measurement units, a reference measurement range of the one or more physiological parameters of plurality of entities of the first subset of the first data sets; and
4) --determining, based on the reference measurement range, the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit.
Gourraud et al. teaches:
1) --wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them; (see: paragraph [0059] where there is authorization tokens used to gain access to information)
2) --determining a first subset of the first data sets based on the one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities; (see: FIG. 3 and paragraph [0050] where there is a segmenter which determines a subset of data from a first data set corresponding to specific segments (attributes) of the data. The attributes being health-related attributes was already taught in the Kim reference)
3) --generating, in one or more measurement units, a reference measurement range of the one or more physiological parameters of plurality of entities of the first subset of the first data sets; (see: paragraph [0121] where there is a generation of a reference range for the data values) and
4) --determining, based on the reference measurement range, the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit (see: paragraphs [0094] and [0098] where there is such a determination based on this reference range).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) wherein a machine transmitting the data structures determines that the system accessing them is authorized to access them, 2) determine a first subset of the first data sets based on the one or more health-related attributes of the plurality of entities, 3) generate, in one or more measurement units, a reference measurement range of the one or more physiological parameters of plurality of entities of the first subset of the first data sets, and 4) determine, based on the reference measurement range, the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit as taught by Gourraud et al. in the system as taught by Kim with the motivation(s) of providing improvements for creating and using databases for retrieving and viewing such data (see: paragraph [0026] of Gourraud et al.).
As per claim 39, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Kim further teaches wherein the operations further comprise providing the third data structure to the computerized health analysis platform (see: paragraph [0091] where the corrected data is being used to make a prediction. This data must be stored, even if temporarily, in order to make this determination).
As per claim 40, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more health-related attributes comprise at least one of a disease indication, a medical condition other than the disease indication, a same medication usage, a same medical treatment, or a gender (see: paragraph [0018] where there is gender as a variable).
As per claim 41, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more physiological parameters represent clinical parameters that are continuously collected at regularly spaced intervals (see: paragraph [0087] and [0088] where there are variables from continuous data).
As per claim 47, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Gourraud et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--outputting the measurement unit to a display of a user interface (see: paragraph [0050] where there is an outputting of measurement information).
As per claim 51, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Kim further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--modifying, based on the third data structure, the one or more second data sets, (see: paragraph [0015] where there is a correction/modification of a second data set (customer’s data set) based on the third data structure (corrected data))
--wherein modifying the one or more second data sets improves data integrity by preventing processing of incomplete or erroneous second data sets, (see: paragraph [0015] where there is a correction/modification of a second data set (customer’s data set) based on the third data structure (corrected data). The correction of this data improves integrity) and
--wherein the measurement unit (i) is incorporated into the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or (ii) replaces respective measurement unit of the one or more measurements that exhibits the mislabeling error (see: paragraph [0015] where there is a correction/modification of a second data set (customer’s data set) based on the third data structure (corrected data). The missing data (error data) is being replaced with this corrected data).
As per claim 52, claim 52 is similar to claim 38 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 38.
As per claim 57, claim 57 is similar to claim 38 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 38.
Claims 48-49 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K.R. 2021/0084224 to Kim in view of U.S. 2020/0312429 Gourraud et al. as applied to claims 47 and 52, and further in view of U.S. 2007/0198213 to Parvin et al.
As per claim 48, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 47, see discussion of claim 47. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating, on the display of the user interface, an indication of whether one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit.
Parvin et al. teaches:
--wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating, on the display of the user interface, an indication of whether one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit (see: paragraph [0477] where there is such an alerting).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the operations further comprise: generating, on the display of the user interface, an indication of whether one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit as taught by Parvin et al. in the system as taught by Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving analytical control performance (see: paragraph [0478] of Parvin et al.).
As per claim 49, Kim, Gourraud et al., and Parvin et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 48, see discussion of claim 48. Parvin et al. further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
--generating a frequency graph that represents a relationship between a frequency of the one or more measurements and a plurality of measurement units (see: paragraphs [0525] and [0529] where there is generation of a frequency and charts).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 48, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 56, claim 56 is similar to claim 48 and is rejected in a similar manner to claim 48.
Claims 42-43, 45-46, 53, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K.R. 2021/0084224 to Kim in view of U.S. 2020/0312429 Gourraud et al. as applied to claim 38, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0207123 to Schein et al.
As per claim 42, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein generating the reference measurement range comprises:
--comparing measurement values of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset of the first data sets with each other; and
--converting different measurement units of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset to the one or more measurement units.
Schein et al. teaches:
--wherein generating the reference measurement range comprises:
--comparing measurement values of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset of the first data sets with each other; (see: paragraphs [0050] – [0051] where there is comparing of values to determine differences) and
--converting different measurement units of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset to the one or more measurement units (see: paragraphs [0004] and [0023] – [0024] where there is a conversion of a format to a target format via ).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein generating the reference measurement range comprises: comparing measurement values of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset of the first data sets with each other and converting different measurement units of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset to the one or more measurement units as taught by Schein et al. in the system as taught by Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving the efficiency of the clinical data integration process are in high demand (see: paragraph [0002] of Schein et al.).
As per claim 43, Kim, Gourraud et al., and Schein et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 42, see discussion of claim 42. Schein et al. further teaches wherein determining the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit comprises:
--comparing one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range; (see: paragraphs [0050] – [0051] where there is comparing of values to determine differences) and
--determining, based on the comparison, that the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit (see: paragraphs [0051] and [0060] where there is a determination of an error).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 42, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 45, Kim, Gourraud et al., and Schein et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 43, see discussion of claim 43. Schein et al. further teaches wherein determining the measurement unit comprises:
--generating a score based on the comparison of the one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range (see: paragraph [0005] where there is generation and comparison of a score to determine an error).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 42, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 46, Kim, Gourraud et al., and Schein et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 45, see discussion of claim 45. Schein et al. further teaches wherein the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error, and
--wherein determining the measurement unit comprises:
--based on comparing the score to a threshold score, determining the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error (see: paragraph [0005] where there is a comparison between a score and a threshold score to determine an error).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 42, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 53, Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 52, see discussion of claim 52. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein determining the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit comprises:
--comparing one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range; and
--determining, based on the comparison, that the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit.
Schein et al. teaches:
--wherein determining the measurement unit for the one or more measurements that lacks the measurement unit or exhibits the mislabeling error regarding the measurement unit comprises:
--comparing one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range; (see: paragraphs [0050] – [0051] where there is comparing of values to determine differences) and
--determining, based on the comparison, that the one or more measurements exhibits the mislabeling error or lacks the measurement unit (see: paragraphs [0051] and [0060] where there is a determination of an error).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein generating the reference measurement range comprises: comparing measurement values of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset of the first data sets with each other and converting different measurement units of the one or more physiological parameters of the first subset to the one or more measurement units as taught by Schein et al. in the method as taught by Kim and Gourraud et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving the efficiency of the clinical data integration process are in high demand (see: paragraph [0002] of Schein et al.).
As per claim 55, Kim, Gourraud et al., and Schein et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 53, see discussion of claim 53. Schein et al. further teaches wherein determining the measurement unit comprises:
--generating a score based on the comparison of the one or more values of the one or more measurements to the reference measurement range, (see: paragraph [0005] where there is generation and comparison of a score to determine an error) and
--wherein determining the measurement unit comprises:
--based on comparing the score to a threshold score, determining that the one or more measurements lacks the measurement unit (see: paragraph [0005] where there is a comparison between a score and a threshold score to determine an error).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 42, and incorporated herein.
No Art Rejections
Claims 44, 50, and 54 do not have art rejections applied based on the prior art references which could be used to reject these claims not being reasonable to reject with, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684