Ex Parte Chaudhri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 2018

13223228 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/223,228 08/31/2011 Imran N. Chaudhri 36088 7590 07/27/2018 KANG LIM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. APX-1001 6922 EXAMINER 3494 Camino Tassajara #444 DOAN, HUANV Danville, CA 94506 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2018 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IMRAN N. CHAUDHRI, SHAHRAM SHAWN DASTMALCHI, ROBERT DERWARD ROGERS, VISHNUVY AS SETHUMADHA VAN, SHAMSHAD ALAM ANSARI, and NIKOLAI N. KALNINE Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 2---6, 8-12, 14--18, and 20-39. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Apixio, Inc. (Br. 3.) Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to management and consolidation of medical information in a medical information engine. (Spec. 1:9--10.) Claim 28 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 28. In a medical information navigation engine (MINE), a computerized method of transacting health information comprising: receiving a health information request (HIR) from a user, wherein the HIR is a text query; retrieving health information in response to the HIR using a medical information navigation engine (MINE); meta tagging the health information by associating the health information's content with medical concepts using a relevancy matrix with rows and columns, wherein the relevancy matrix provides probabilistic associations between medical concepts, lab procedures, physiological measurements, medications and allergies, and wherein the elements in the rows and columns of the relevancy matrix are ap1x10ns; searching the health information and the meta tags for the apixions matching terms in the text query to identify relevant health information; and providing the relevant health information to the user based upon the user's role, wherein different user roles receive different relevant health information. Claims 2--4, 8-11, 14--18, 20-29, 32-35, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Beggelman (US 2009/0070103 Al; Mar. 12, 2009), Maresh (US 2009/0112882 Al; Apr. 30, 2009), and Aridi (US 2009/0271221 Al; Oct. 29, 2009). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, and Pedro (US 2009/0024615 Al; Jan. 22, 2009). 2 Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 Claims 5, 30, 31, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, and Hahn (US 2010/0185496 Al; July 22, 2010). Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, Hahn, and Abrams (US 2008/0270340 Al; Oct. 30, 2008). ANALYSIS Â§ 103 Rejection-Beggelman, Maresh, and Aridi We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 11-12) that the combination of Beggelman, Maresh, and Aridi would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "meta tagging the health information by associating the health information's content with medical concepts ... wherein the relevancy matrix provides probabilistic associations between medical concepts, lab procedures, physiological measurements, medications and allergies." The Examiner found that the natural language (NL) multi-stage processing of Beggelman, which generates a resultant search string, and the "SmartSearch" of Beggelman, collectively correspond to the limitation "meta tagging the health information by associating the health information's content with medical concepts ... wherein the relevancy matrix provides probabilistic associations between medical concepts." (Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Beggelman relates to performing "natural language (NL) processing" (Abstract), in particular, "a natural language processing (NLP) and knowledge representation (KR) approach that differs from other existing 3 Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 methodologies" (i-f 4 ), also referred to as "Knowledge Extraction and Encoding Processors (KEEP)" (i-f 5). Beggelman explains that "some studies have suggested that the use of statistical constraints is not as accurate as contextual processing that uses explicit domain-specific expert knowledge" and accordingly, "the implementation of the KEEP system ... does not incorporate statistical methods." (i-f 64.) Beggelman further explains that that "SmartSearch" is "rule matching to identify simple concepts embodied ( or described) in the tagged sentences on which concept identification is performed" (i-f 115) and the "SmartSearch" rules "identify[] the semantic content and matching of ontology branches (including any identified modifiers that are semantically attached to the concept, and that would auto- generate a child branch)" (i-f 170). Although the Examiner cited to the multi-stage processing of natural language (NL) of Beggelman and the "SmartSearch" rules of Beggelman, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Beggelman teaches the limitation "meta tagging the health information by associating the health information's content with medical concepts ... wherein the relevancy matrix provides probabilistic associations between medical concepts, lab procedures, physiological measurements, medications and allergies." In particular, Beggelman explains that the natural language processing (NLP) and knowledge representation (KR) system or KEEP system "does not incorporate statistical methods." (i-f 64.) Similarly, Beggelman explains that "SmartSearch" rules identify "the semantic content and matching of ontology branches." (i-f 170.) Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Beggelman teaches the limitation "meta tagging the health information by associating the health information's 4 Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 content with medical concepts ... wherein the relevancy matrix provides probabilistic associations between medical concepts." Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that: While nuanced, the present claims actually utilize a relevancy matrix not merely as a convenient data storage feature ( as relational databases are known for) but instead as a mechanism for providing probabilistic associations between medical concepts. Relational databases, as known, have a row that is a record for a single item, and a column equating to attributes. These data structures do not provide probabilistic associations between concepts. Instead, as explicitly noted in Beggelman, a complex branched ontology perform this function, and then merely references back to the source data that is stored in the relational database. (Br. 12.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 2--4, 8-11, 14--18, 20-27, 29, 32, 33, and 39 depend from claim 28. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 8- 11, 14--18, 20-27, 29, 32, 33, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 28. Independent claim 34 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 28. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 34, as well as its dependent claims 35 and 38, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 28. Â§ 103 Rejection-Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, and Hahn Claims 5, 30, 31, 36, and 37 depend from independent claims 28 and 34. Hahn was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 5, 30, 31, 36, and 37. (Final Act. 24--26.) However, the Examiner's 5 Appeal2017-010346 Application 13/223,228 application of Hahn does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Beggehnan, Maresh, and Aridi. Â§ 103 Rejection-Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, and Pedro Claim 12 depends from independent claim 28. Pedro was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 12. (Final Act. 24.) However, the Examiner's application of Pedro does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Beggelman, Maresh, and Aridi. Â§ 103 Rejection-Beggelman, Maresh, Ari di, Hahn, and Abrams Claim 6 depends from independent claim 28. Abrams was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 6. (Final Act. 26- 27.) However, the Examiner's application of Abrams does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Beggelman, Maresh, Aridi, and Hahn. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2---6, 8-12, 14--18, and 20- 3 9 is reversed. REVERSED 6