DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23 as filed 07/28/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17-21, and 23 are drawn to a system, manufacture, and method, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining, from a first communication device associated with a first user, a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, wherein the first communication device that stores first private medical data of the first user;
transmitting, to a second communication device associated with a second user, an identifier associated with the first request;
obtaining a second request from the second communication device, the second request including the identifier;
based on the obtaining of the second request, generating a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and
transmitting the first key to the second communication device, transmitting of the first key to the second communication device causing the second communication device to transmit the first key to the first communication device to unlock and obtain a first portion of the first private medical data from the first communication device, and further causing the second communication device to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the user,
wherein an application executed by the second communication device prohibits the second communication device from storing the first portion of the first private medical data in a memory device of the second communication device and transmitting the first portion of the first private medical data.
Independent claim 17 recites:
17. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining, from a first communication device associated with a first user, a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, wherein the first communication device stores first private medical data of the first user;
transmitting to a second communication device associated with a second user, an identifier associated with the first request;
obtaining a second request from the second communication device, the second request including the identifier;
based on the obtaining of the second request, generating a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and
transmitting the first key to the second communication device, the transmitting of the first key to the second communication device causing the second communication device to transmit the first key to the first communication device to unlock and obtain a first portion of the first private medical data from the first communication device, and further causing the second communication device to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the first user,
wherein an application executed by the second communication device prohibits the second communication device from storing the first portion of the first private medical data in a memory device of the second communication device and from transmitting the first portion of the first private medical data.
Independent claim 19 recites:
19. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, from a first communication device associated with a first user, a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, wherein the first communication device stores first private medical data of the first user;
transmitting, by the processing system, to a second communication device associated with a second user, an identifier associated with the first request;
obtaining, by the processing system, a second request from the second communication device, the second request including the identifier;
based on the obtaining of the second request, generating, by the processing system, a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and
transmitting, by the processing system, the first key to the second communication device, the transmitting of the first key to the second communication device causing the second communication device to transmit the first key to the first communication device to unlock and obtain a first portion of the first private medical data from the first communication device, and further causing the second communication device to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the first user,
wherein an application executed by the second communication device prohibits the second communication device from storing the first portion of the first private medical data in a memory device of the second communication device and from transmitting the first portion of the first private medical data.
The above recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states “granting and providing conditional access to data on an as-needed basis via the use of permissions or keys” (See Specification at [0003]). For example, but for the above bolded claim limitations, obtaining a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, obtaining a second request, the second request including the identifier; and based on the obtaining of the second request, generating a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and obtain a first portion of the first private medical data to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the user, in the context of the claim, encompasses the above certain method of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “provisioning of data that can be used to support various users/people … where an … ability to obtain access to the data quickly may be a major determinant in realizing/obtaining positive outcomes/resolutions” (See Specification at [0002]). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the above bolded additional elements, such as “a processing system including a processor” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations” (claim 1), “a first communication device” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “a second communication device” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “an application executed by the second communication device,” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “a memory device of the second communication device” (claim 1), “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:” (claim 17), “a first user equipment” (claim 17), “a second user equipment” (claim 17), “an application executed by the second user equipment,” (claim 17), “a memory device of the second user equipment” (claim 17), “a third user equipment” (claim 17), “a second processing system including a second processor” (claim 19), “an application executed by the second processing system,” (claim 19), “a memory device of the second processing system” (claim 19), are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the a processing system including a processor; a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, and an application executed by the second communication device (See Specification at [0058], [0059], [0061], [0096]) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements of transmitting the requests, keys, and corresponding data by and between devices are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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 ideas into a practical application, using the above bolded additional elements, such as including an “a processing system including a processor” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations” (claim 1), “a first communication device” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “a second communication device” (claims 1, 17, and 19), “an application executed by the second communication device,” (claim 1), “a memory device of the second communication device” (claim 1), “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:” (claim 17), “a first user equipment” (claim 17), “a second user equipment” (claim 17), “an application executed by the second user equipment,” (claim 17), “a memory device of the second user equipment” (claim 17), “a third user equipment” (claim 17), “a second processing system including a second processor” (claim 19), “an application executed by the second processing system,” (claim 19), “a memory device of the second processing system” (claim 19),are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the a processing system including a processor; a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, and an application executed by the second communication device (See Specification at [0058], [0059], [0061], [0096]) to perform the abstract ideas amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements of transmitting the requests, keys, and corresponding data by and between devices amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Accordingly, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 18, 20-21, and 23, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. For example, “a third communication device” (claims 3, 13) and “a memory device” (claim 14), recite generic computer components configured to perform the limitations through no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea (See Specification at [0058], [0061], [0096]). Further, the additional element of transmitting the requests, keys, and corresponding data (claims 6, 8, 12, 13, 18, and 20) amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and output that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity amounting to receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(f), subsection II. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Statement - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is an Examiner’s Statement for claims 1,3-6,8-10,12-13,15, 17-21, and 23 being free from prior art in the particular ordered combination recited in the claims:
The closest prior art of records – U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0250348 A1 (hereinafter “D’Ambrosia et al.”), U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0172737 A1 (hereinafter “Shen et al.”), U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0241869 A1 (hereinafter “Muse et al.”), and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0199972 A1 (hereinafter “Hussam et al.). – does not teach the invention in the particular combination as claimed in independent claims 1, 17, and 19, respectively; therefore, the closest prior art of record does not anticipate or otherwise render the claimed invention obvious, specifically the disclosure of: “obtaining, from a first communication device associated with a first user, a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, wherein the first communication device that stores first private medical data of the first user; transmitting, to a second communication device associated with a second user, an identifier associated with the first request; obtaining a second request from the second communication device, the second request including the identifier; based on the obtaining of the second request, generating a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and transmitting the first key to the second communication device, transmitting of the first key to the second communication device causing the second communication device to transmit the first key to the first communication device to unlock and obtains a first portion of the first private medical data from the first communication device, and further causing the second communication device to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the user, wherein an application executed by the second communication device prohibits the second communication device from storing the first portion of the first private medical data in a memory device of the second communication device and transmitting the first portion of the first private medical data,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as substantially similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 19.
D’Ambrosia et al. teaches alerting a first responder about an emergency from an emergency dispatcher receiving a 911 telephone call from the subscriber, wherein an emergency dispatcher obtains the subscriber’s ICE identifier in addition to information to the on-going emergency. See D’Ambrosia et al. at [0071]-[0072]. Shen et al. teaches upon receiving a medical record access request from requestor client, access manager processes an authorization ID code including in the request to determine whether the requesting party has been authorized at one of the levels in the temporal account hierarchy as determined from the authorization data within the stored access authorization objects the code verification validates the record request authenticity and authorization. See Shen et al. [0011]. Muse et al. teaches receiving a request to access the personal data from a second device, wherein the request comprises authorization credentials associated with the second device; and upon verification that the authorization credentials are associated with an authorized user, providing, to the second device, access to the rolling recording of personal data generated at the personal device of the first user. See Muse et al. [0002]. And Hussam et al. teaches a third party system and a system are each obligated to seek permission to collect, store and share the patient’s data, wherein a portable device is configured to automatically transmit portable device data to the third-party system which can then store the portable device data for later use, such as transmission to the data processing system such that the portable device data can be accessed from the third-party system using an application program interface (API) associated with the third-party system See Hussam et al. [0023], [0053]. These references, however, fail to teach “causing the second communication device to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the user.” Additional prior art, such as U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0020467 A1 (hereinafter “Evelyn et al.”) teaches a method and system wherein a patient device unlocks and then displays emergency instructions. See Evelyn et al. [0183]. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the teaches of D’Ambrosia et al., Shen et al., Must et al., Hussam et al., and Evelyn et al.
As a result, the closest prior art fails to teach each limitation of the independent claims in the particular ordered combination recited such that the claims are anticipated or otherwise rendered obvious by one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 07/28/2025.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if so, recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and
Regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, Applicant argues that the amendments to independent claims 1, 17, and 19 are not taught by the cited prior art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant argues that the claim as a whole does not set forth the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. That is, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim limitations are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states “granting and providing conditional access to data on an as-needed basis via the use of permissions or keys” (See Specification at [0003]). For example, obtaining a first request for medical attention to be administered to the first user, obtaining a second request, the second request including the identifier; and based on the obtaining of the second request, generating a first key based on second data associated with the second user, the second data reflecting one or more medical credentials of the second user; and obtain a first portion of the first private medical data to generate a first directive that commands the second user to perform a first task as part of administering the medical attention to the user, in the context of the claim, encompasses the above certain method of organizing human activity.
Second, Applicant argues that claimed features are integrated into a practical application through transmitting credential-derived keys to devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the claims fail to recite an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application as a result of merely using generic computer components as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility guidance for 101. That is, the identified additional elements of the claim (e.g. a processing system including a processor” (claims 1), “a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations” (claim 1), “a first communication device” (claim 1), “a second communication device” (claim 1), “an application executed by the second communication device,” (claim 1), “a memory device of the second communication device,”) (See Specification at [0058], [0061], [0096]) are configured to perform the system through no more than a statement that the stored instructions are to be executed) such that the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claim recites features that are not taught by the prior art such the amendments to the claim result in the claim not reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. (See Remarks at pgs. 14-15). Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that novelty for purposes of 102/103 resulting in a non-obvious combination does not itself overcome 101 in reciting unconventional claim features. Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 is abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements, each of which are recited at a high-level (See Specification at [0058], [0059], [0061], [0096]) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional element of transmitting the requests, keys, and corresponding data (claims 6, 8, 12, 13, 18, and 20) amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and output that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity amounting to receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(f), subsection II. The same is true for dependent claims 8, 18, and 19, specifically, wherein the transmitting of keys is extra-solution activity as sending data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as discussed above to enable multi-responder coordination through automated, credential-specific task generation, tailored to the emergency context as a certain method of organizing human activity through following rules or instructions.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21, and 23, Examiner is persuaded and has withdrawn the prior 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-21,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0082554 A1 teaches initial incident information can include information identifying the patient and/or providing individual characteristics of the patient that can influence determining how to respond to the injury; the monitoring component can continuously and/or regularly monitor the ongoing incident feedback information received over time (e.g., over a course of treatment or care of the patient) to facilitate evaluating the status of the patient/injury to determine how to continue to guide the first responder in association with treating the patient/injury ([0030], [0083]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0344707 A1 teaches the integrated ambulance tracking system may identify an available ambulance, from a set of ambulances, based on a location associated with the patient device (e.g., a geographic proximity between the available ambulance and the location ([0013]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0332807 A1 teaches multiple levels of abstraction establishes "rings of privacy" such that only the level of identifying information necessary to perform a desired service or permitted function is provided; when access to PII/PHI information is necessary to perform an appropriate and authorized use at a specific level, association keys (AKs) and/or replacement keys (RKs) may be used to discern the relevant sensitive PII/PHI data associated with applicable temporal data representations and dynamically changing de-identifiers; a series of masking steps are applied to direct identifiers (e.g., name, address) and masking and/or statistically-based manipulations are applied to quasi-identifiers (e.g., age, sex, profession) in order to reduce the likelihood of re-identification by unauthorized third parties ([0794]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0142979 A1 teaches a person's medical information will only appear for a predetermined length of time, e.g., 15 minutes, upon which it disappears from the mobile device to ensure privacy and the mobile device may be prohibited from storing the medical information ([0045]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0364654 A1 teaches the facilitating provisioning health data during emergencies ([0006]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0288024 A1 teaches sharing patient health information by generating a temporal access key based on a detection of an event (Abstract); and
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0366473 A1 teaches access to electronic health records by the emergency care team (abstract);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0050225 A1 teaches the system may be designed to require the crew member making such change has the appropriate permissions and the crew member to whom the task is assigned is authorized to perform the task ([0053]);
U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0053035 A1 teaches an application that automatically identifies at least one healthcare worker to provide the services to the patient based on data indicating, worker credentials, worker privilege status, and worker availability by using worker credentials, worker privilege status and worker availability in determining a probabilistic estimate of likelihood a worker is able to provide the services in an acceptable time frame, wherein he worker credentials include, a regulatory license to practice medicine, a practitioner database report, a validated training history, board certification, an examination status, a performance improvement status or a quality rating ([0040]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/A.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682