EPO – Principal Directorate Business Services – Directorate Classification & Documentation
Subject: Medical / Healthcare
Informatics
Project: F008
IPC: G16H (TBC)
23 October 2015
Rapporteur Report
Preamble
In the following, Medical Informatics and Healthcare Informatics are used as interchangeably as
synonyms.
Background
Following RR & RP, comments were sent by CA, AU, SE and DE.
No office objects really to approach taken by R –– as a matter of facts, SE supported it clearly
whereas DE suggested using a new G06 subclass instead of a new G16 class, but in essence most of
the suggested entries would remain.
It is too early to draw any conclusion; therefore R will rather use the available comments for raising
more awareness on some issue and pose more questions.
R has collected the issues and the questions in four groups I-IV, to facilitate further discussion.
Questions raised by R
I. Where to place the subject of Healthcare Informatics in IPC –– whether G16 (or like) new
class is desired; whether G16S (or like) subclass of G06 is a better solution
R had considered four different scenarios when he investigated the status of “Healthcare
Informatics” project F008 and its problems.
The scenarios are summarized in a table for better readability.
Scenarios for
“Where to
place
Healthcare
Informatics
in IPC”
A.
Use G06F 19/00
B.
Use G06Q
C.
Use a new G06
subclass (e.g.
G06S)
D.
Use a new class
(e.g. G16) and a
new subclass (e.g.
G16H)
R’s analysis
G06F 19/00 is a
wrongly-placed
application-entry
in the middle of a
function place. It
worked as a “junk
bin”.
G06Q was created
as the place for
“administrative,
commercial,
financial,
managerial,
supervisory or
forecasting”
purposes.
DE suggestion.
R’s favourite
option.
Adding more
entries to G06F
Note that G06
covers also
Counting (next to
Computing and
Calculating).
R does not see a
good technical
reason to merge
G16 could be used
in the future for
more “application
fields”, of any
kind.
Bio-informatics
could fit in a
19/00 is
(classificationwise) wrong and
without any
“vision”.
Anything to do
with (Medical)
Sciences was not
included. This was
not by simple
omission, R thinks.
Bio-Informatics
and Medical
Informatics
together.
separate subclass
on its own.
Ditto for current
G06Q.
G06S alone is fine,
but if we need
G06Q is already
more subclasses,
quite crowded and G06 is already
could soon become over-crowded.
not fit to cover
We could need
more subjects.
another subclass
soon and over time
more “application
fields” could be
identified, making
also G06S small.
Q: offices are invited to review the table under section I and indicate which of the scenarios A to D
they prefer.
II. Which existing or new subjects could migrate to the new G16/G06S place(s)
So far the following subjects have been identified or somehow suggested, by R or commenting
offices, as suited for migration to the new IPC place(s):
Identified by
Subject
Current IPC
New IPC
R / SE / DE
“IT solutions” for specific
applications, not otherwise
provided for
G06F 19/00
G16Z (scenario D)
R / SE / DE
“IT solutions” for bioinformatics
G06F 19/10-19/28
G06S (scenario C);
G16N (scenario D)
R / SE / DE
“IT solutions” for healthcare
informatics
n./a. or partly covered
by G06Q 50/22-50/24
G06S (scenario C);
G16H (scenario D)
R / SE
“IT solutions” for
administrative, commercial,
financial, managerial,
supervisory or forecasting
purposes
G06Q
G16Q (scenario D)
Residual to anything
else covered by G16
If desired and agreed, a
more rational split of
G06Q into more
subclasses could be
considered, e.g. creating
a specific subclass for
payment and commerce
(G06Q 20/00 & 30/00)
Identified by
Subject
Current IPC
New IPC
NB: at this stage, the following rows are mere R’s speculations
SE / DE
Control or regulation
G05B
To be assessed
R notes that there are
forms of control or
regulation which are not
“IT” based
DE / R
“IT solutions” for industrial
design automation (aka
computer-aided design), e.g.
for architectural blueprints,
engineering drawings,
business processes, circuit
diagrams or sewing patterns
G06F 17/50
G16L (scenario D)
R
“IT solutions” for image
processing or generation; for
pattern recognition; for
“computer vision” etc.
G06T, G06K 9/00
G16V (scenario D)
R
“IT solutions” for smart
grids, i.e. smart energy
distribution and control etc.
n./a.
G16E (scenario D)
R
“IT solutions” for
“domotics”, i.e. smart
automation of home,
housework or household
appliances and activities
n./a.
G16D (scenario D)
Q2: offices are invited to review the table under II and identify which subjects could migrate to
G16 / G06 subclasses and, in case, to specify how.
III. Clarity and overlap issues –– how scope, titles, Notes and references can be clarified
The Scheme submitted by R in anx16 was commented by CA, AU, SE and DE.
Said offices posted remarks about clarity and overlap issues of some titles, Notes and references.
Q3: with a view to the Scheme proposed in anx16 and the questions and comments posted by CA,
AU, SE, DE in anx17-21, offices are invited to offer possible answers to the issues identified so far,
as well as to identify more clarity and overlap issues.
IV. How to reduce the reclassification effort for some offices
R will not neglect an important element of this project, which goes together with Scheme (and later
Definition) proposals, namely the due reclassification effort.
It is evident that a CPC-based scheme for Healthcare Informatics, whether going to occupy G06S or
G16H, will take minimum reclassification resources to EPO, USPTO and to some extent the offices
belonging to the European Patent Organisation or already classifying in CPC.
Yet the reclassification effort of other offices –– JP to begin with, but not only –– cannot be ignored.
Q4: offices are invited to explore and identify ways to reduce the reclassification effort for non-CPC
collections. For example, whether solutions like those previously used for H04W (with a longstanding IPC warning) and B82Y (rely on CPC collections in first instance, the rest left to the “good
will” of the other offices) can be envisioned here.
Next actions
R invites offices to comment on questions Q1-Q4 above, as well as on the Scheme proposal of
anx16, taking into account the comments already sent by CA, AU, SE and DE.
Roberto Iasevoli