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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: US Patent Application filed on 8/5/2024.
● Claims 2-21 are currently pending; claim 1 has been canceled.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
● Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tschetter (US 2017000391094).
Regarding claim 2, Tschetter discloses a system, comprising:
a data store (a data storage for storing electronic documents, figs. 1-4) comprising a plurality of electronic documents;
at least one computing device (hardware 116, fig. 1) in communication with the data store, the at least one computing device being configured to:
identify at least one word characteristic (identifying word characteristics via text recognition module 150, fig. 1) of a set of electronic documents (see figs. 1-4 for more details in regards to texts/words/document recognition);
perform a comparison (the system may compare the document types of the individual electronic documents in the set of multiple documents to the target document types selected by the user. Documents matching the target document types defined by the user may be added to the set of electronic documents associated with an individual patient. The set of electronic documents associated with an individual patient may then be stored in a knowledge base as a single electronic record, the single electronic record separately identifiable by an identifier that is different than the individual knowledge base identifiers associated with the multiple electronic documents in the set. A user may then later accept input identifying a set of electronic documents associated with an individual patient and retrieve the multiple documents as a set from the knowledge base, par. 4) of the at least one word characteristic of the set of electronic documents with a library (knowledge base of stored documents, figs. 2-3, pars. 3-4, 17) of word characteristics associated with available document-set types;
determine a document-set type (fig. 2) for the set of electronic documents based on the comparison; and
set a storage location (store document in knowledge base database, figs. 2, 3, 4, 6) for the set of electronic documents based on the document-set type.
Regarding claim 3, Tschetter further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to receive an indication of an entity associated with the set of electronic documents (medical records associated with patient’s, fig. 1, pars. 4, 17, see entire reference for more details in regards to electronic documents associated with patients).
Regarding claim 4, Tschetter the system of claim 3, wherein the storage location (storing document sets as shown in fig. 3 in a storage unit, par. 17) is determined further based on an entity (document -set type associated with a patient, pars. 4, 17) associated with the document-set type.
Regarding claim 5, Tschetter further discloses Tschetter the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to: perform text recognition (text recognition, par. 23) on the set of electronic documents to generate a set of text; and identify the at least one word characteristic (text recognition as shown in fig. 1 for identifying texts (words) of the electronic document) of the set of electronic documents based on the set of text.
Regarding claim 6, Tschetter further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to: identify ordered text (texts within electronic document including phrases, paragraphs, and etc., figs. 1-2, pars. 23-24) from the set of electronic documents; extract (par. 30) a plurality of adjacent multi-word phrases from the ordered text; and eliminate (eliminate/remove, pars. 53-54, 141) at least one adjacent multi-word phrase from the plurality of adjacent multi-word phrases based at least in part on at least one predetermined rule (figs. 3-4, pars. 100-112).
Regarding claim 7, Tschetter further discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to generate definition data (definition data, par. 141) for the plurality of adjacent multi-word phrases.
Regarding claim 8, Tschetter further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein document-set type is the same among (same document type, pars. 21, 31) the set of electronic documents.
Regarding claims 9-21 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claims 2-8 above; therefore, claims 9-21 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 2-8.
Conclusion
● The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---US 201700286414 to Roebuck, teaches a method for identifying document types for electronic documents.
---Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights