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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgment
This Action is in response to the request for continued examination and the amendment filed on March 17, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-19 and 21-22 are currently pending, from which claims 9-14 are withdrawn by Applicant’s election and claims 6 and 20 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 15-19 and 21-22 have been fully examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues, on pages 10-11 of the remarks, that the cited prior art does not teach processors of an identity provider receiving an electronic health record form a medical provider in response to a request from the patient, for the purpose of storing the electronic health record in a virtual health wallet for the patient. The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments were fully considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in multiple places use the term “endpoint” and specifically “endpoint of the virtual health wallet” while no definition for the term is provided in the claims or in the Specification. However, the Specification discloses “the wallet is stored on a cloud-based endpoint.” (Abstract, [0003]) and “the SSI provider 150 who may store the electronic health record 104 at an endpoint associated with the wallet 159.” ([0017]) Therefore, the term “endpoint” is interpreted as a device associated with the SSI provider on which the records (and wallets) are stored.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 15, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordonnier (US Patent No. 11,443,838 ) in view of Peng (US Patent No. 11/093,933,) further in view of Pattanaik et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0364552.)
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Cordonnier teaches:
creating, by one or more processors, of an identity provider, a virtual health wallet for a patient; (server (i.e., identity provider) issues a digital wallet for the patient: Col. 31 ll. 22-43, claim 5)
receiving, by the one or more processors and responsive to a request from the patient to a medical provider, an electronic health record from the medical provider, wherein the electronic health record is associated with a … digital identifier and is signed using a private key of the medical provider; (users request healthcare data: Col. 3 ll. 13-45, Col. 10 l. 57-Col. 11 l. 6, server receives data from healthcare providers: Col. 14 ll. 30-53, healthcare data is signed using private key: Col. 11 ll. 7-36)
storing, by the one or more processors, the electronic health record in the virtual health wallet…wherein the electronic health record is associated with a first endpoint of the virtual health wallet … (the records are stored in the digital wallets, on digital filing cabinets (i.e., endpoint) associated with the server: Col. 4 l. 21-Col. 5 l. 14)
Cordonnier does not explicitly teach; however, Peng teaches:
wherein the electronic health record is associated with a first decentralized digital identifier, (decentralized digital identifier associated with data in a blockchain: (Col. 3 l. 64-Col. 4 l. 17, Col. 15 l. 58-Col. 16 l. 26, Col. 22 ll. 40-63)
storing, by the one or more processors, the first decentralized digital identifier of the electronic health record with an identifier of the first endpoint associated with the electronic health record on a distributed cryptographic ledger. (store records including the decentralized digital identifier and identifiers of blockchains associated with data in a blockchain: (Col. 3 l. 64-Col. 4 l. 17, Col. 15 l. 58-Col. 16 l. 26, Col. 22 ll. 40-63,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate storing user records associated with decentralized identifiers, as taught by Peng, into the server of Cordonnier that stores health records in wallets on filing cabinets developed on a distributed ledger, in order to provide access authorization to the health records using decentralized identifiers on a ledger. (Peng.: Abstract, Col. 1 ll. 45-63)
Cordonnier and Peng do not explicitly teach; however, Pattanaik et al. teach:
a directed graph data structure comprising nodes: ( FIG. 4A-4B, [0058]-[0063])
each node comprises data signed using a private key and a public key corresponding to the private key (each node comprises payload (i.e., patient data) encrypted using a private key and a public key: FIG. 5A, envelope 515: [0083]-[0085])
a node is a child of a second node of the directed graph… (each node corresponds to an immediately previous node (i.e., a parent node: [0082])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using directed graph structure for storing transaction data, as taught by Pattanaik et al., into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier and Peng, that store health records in digital wallets by encrypting the records using private/public key pairs, in order to provide a tracible and verifiable lineage of transactions. (Pattanaik et al..: Abstract, [0006]-[0006])
The examiner notes that although Pattanaik et al. is not in the same filed of endeavor of electronic health records, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of ensuring data integrity when sharing transaction records between multiple parties, and therefore is analogous art to the present Application.
Pattanaik et al. do not explicitly teach “a directed graph for the electronic health record’ and “a second node of the directed graph that is associated with a medical provider” however, the claim recitations indicate non-functional descriptive material that merely describe the data and therefore do not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 5 and 19, Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Moreover, Peng teaches:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to access the electronic health record, wherein the request to access the electronic health record includes the first decentralized digital identifier and is associated with a second medical provider; (receiving a request that includes decentralized identifier to access digital activity: FIGS. 20-21, Col. 52 ll. 53-67, Col. 53 l. 56-Col. 54 l. 18, Col. 54 ll. 28-32)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “request…is associated with a second medical provider,” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
in response to the request to access the electronic health record, retrieving , by the one or more processors, the identifier of the first endpoint from the distributed cryptographic ledger; (business decentralized identifier (BizDID) (i.e., identifier of endpoint) of the blockchain: Col. 53 l. 56-Col. 54 l. 18, retrieve data from the blockchain: Col. 54 ll. 40-44)
determining, by the one or more processors, that the second medical provider has permission to access the electronic health record; (manage authorization of access; (Col. 54 ll. 45-50)
in response to determining that the second medical provider has permission, providing , by the one or more processors, access to the electronic health record on the first endpoint. (Col. 55 ll. 30-36)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate storing user records associated with decentralized identifiers, as taught by Peng, into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier that stores health records in smart wallets, in order to provide access authorization to the health records using decentralized identifiers on a ledger. (Peng.: Abstract, Col. 1 ll. 45-63)
With respect to claims 7 and 21, Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. teach the limitations of claims 5 and 19.
Moreover, Peng teaches:
wherein determining that the second medical provider has permission to access the electronic health record comprises:
prompting the patient for permission using an application executing on a computing device associated with the patient. (Col. 41 l. 59-Col. 42 l. 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate storing user records associated with decentralized identifiers, as taught by Peng, into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier that stores health records in smart wallets, in order to provide access authorization to the health records using decentralized identifiers on a ledger. (Peng.: Abstract, Col. 1 ll. 45-63)
With respect to claims 8 and 22, Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. teach the limitations of claims 5 and 19.
Moreover, Peng teaches:
wherein the request to access the electronic health record is associated with a digital signature and further comprising authenticating the request to access the electronic health record using a public key associated with the second medical provider. (Col. 16 ll. 9-17, Col. 35 ll. 51-59, Col. 78 l. 54-Col. 79 l. 5, Col. 83 ll. 44-63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate storing user records associated with decentralized identifiers, as taught by Peng, into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier that stores health records in smart wallets, in order to provide access authorization to the health records using decentralized identifiers on a ledger. (Peng.: Abstract, Col. 1 ll. 45-63)
Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordonnier, in view of Peng and Pattanaik et al., as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Zhong et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0277246)
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. do not explicitly teach:
wherein the first node comprises the electronic health record and the first decentralized digital identifier.
However, Zhong et al. teach:
wherein the first node comprises the electronic health record and the first decentralized digital identifier. (create a node or entity for medical data records including an identifier, in a directed graph data structure: [0059]-[0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the directed graph data structure for managing patient data, as taught by Zhong et al., into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. that stores health records in smart wallets, in order to maintain relationship between entities and enable searching of the health records in response to queries. (Zhong et al.: Abstract, [0014]-[0015])
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Cordonnier, Peng and Pattanaik and Zhong et al. teach the limitations of claims 2 and 16.
Moreover, Cordonnier teaches:
receiving, by the one or more processors, an update to the electronic health record from the medical provider, …(server collects updated health data: Col. 6 ll. 17-30)
storing, by the one or more processors, the update to the electronic health record in the virtual health wallet. (updated medical records are stored: Col. 11 ll. 7-36, Col. 12 ll. 7-27)
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Cordonnier, Peng and Pattanaik et al. and Zhong et al. teach the limitations of claims 3 and 17.
Moreover, Zhong et al. teach:
creating a third node for the directed graph for the update to the electronic health record, wherein the third node comprises the update to the electronic health record and the second decentralized digital identifier; (the graph is updated by creating nodes: [0075], [0078],
adding a link between the third node to the first node. (links or edges are created between nodes: [0060]-[0062], [0075])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the directed graph data structure for managing patient data, as taught by Zhong et al., into the health record transaction server of Cordonnier and Peng and Pattanaik et al. that stores health records in smart wallets, in order to maintain relationship between entities and enable searching of the health records in response to queries. (Zhong et al.: Abstract, [0014]-[0015])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jarvis (US 2021/0327189) teaches storing health records on distributed ledger and providing records based on request. McFarlan (US 20210005296,) teaches storing health records on blockchain and providing records to third parties on request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights