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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that claim 29 does not recite an abstract idea but rather recites a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application since they amount to nothing more than applying the abstract idea in a computer environment due to the generic recitation of the claim elements being used for their intended purpose (e.g., processor, network, etc.).
Applicant argues that the features of the amended claims are similar to those recited in Example 42. The claim likewise automates research cohort selection and permission-aware data access.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims are unlike Example 42 since that example was attempting to standardize formats from different sources rather than establishing cohort research data as in Applicant’s claims. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application since they merely amount to applying the abstract idea in a computer environment.
Applicant argues that even if the claims were considered to be involved in an abstract idea, it includes significantly more. The elements are not generic computer functions, they are specific, technical solutions to problems in distributed health data management and ethical research participation.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements do not amount to a significantly more since they amount to nothing more than applying the abstract idea in a computer environment due to the generic recitation of the claim elements being used for their intended purpose (e.g., processor, network, etc.). See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that the claimed method improves the functioning of electronic health record systems by enabling patient controlled data sharing, implementing secure consent workflows, and avoiding the need for centralized data aggregation.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as previously discussed the additional elements do not amount to a practical application since they amount to nothing more than applying the abstract idea in a computer environment due to the generic recitation of the claim elements being used for their intended purpose (e.g., processor, network, etc.). Additionally, some of the limitations at issue in the argument are part of the abstract idea and not considered an additional element. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that reducing the claim to collecting and analyzing data or organizing human activity misses the nuanced and novel implementation of permission-aware, pointer-based, distributed cohort assembly.
In response to Applicant’s argument, in the rejection below, the entire claim is reproduced in the analysis with the abstract idea being underlined. Thus, the claim is not oversimplified.
Rejection Under 103
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended claims. Specifically, Sinderbrand does not teach allowing patients to confirm inclusion in the cohort.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the argument is directed toward the amendment and is therefore moot. However, Sinderbrand at [0039] teaches that the patient confirms that they data is available for the data analysis research. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended claims. Specifically, transmitting notifications for confirmation of patient acceptance.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the argument is directed toward the amendment and is therefore moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. However, Carey teaches this limitation. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach identifying with at least one processor but rather teaches the patient searching their own files. The at least one processor cannot be the patient’s own computer.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Gifford teaches that the user is accessing the records for identification and the user can be a doctor using their doctor’s system to interact with the records server. See Gifford at [0054]. This is construed to read on Applicant’s claim.
Applicant argues that Gifford and Fotsch do not establish a cohort and it is difficult to see why one would be motivated to include Sinderbrand’s disclosure of allowing patients to update a cohort inclusion record. The Fotsch reference does not appear to provide such a motivation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have attempted to combine the references in the manner suggested in the action without the benefit of hindsight provided by the present application.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The addition of Sinderbrand is motivated by allowing patients the control to determine if they want their data used in cohort research for better treatments. They are still controlling the access to their data, which is in line with the teachings with Gifford and Fotsch. See the updated rejection below for further clarification.
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 29-34, 36-48 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.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 29-34, 36-43, 46 are drawn to a computer-implemented method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 44, 47 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus). Claims 45, 48 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 29 (and substantially similar with independent claims 44-48) recites:
A computer-implemented method of establishing a cohort to conduct research, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing in computer-readable memory:
health records about patients, the health records about the patients including pointers to different sources that store medical data about the patients, are managed by different organizations, and are reachable over a network; and
information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research;
receiving, with at least one processor, a request from a third party related to the research and indicative of at least one criterion for the research;
identifying, with the at least one processor, individual ones of the health records about individual ones of the patients that meet the at least one criterion and that are permitted by the individual ones of the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research;
transmitting, with the at least one processor, notifications to personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients to confirm whether the individual ones of the patients accept that the individual ones of the health records be used for the research;
receiving, with the at least one processor, data from the personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients that confirms that the individual ones of the patients, who are among the individual ones of the patients, accept that the individual ones of the health records, which are among the individual ones of the health records, be included in the cohort for the research; and
transmitting, with the at least one processor, at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients who confirmed inclusion in the cohort stored in the different sources pointed to by the pointers included in the individual ones of the health records to the third party for conducting the research.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor, computer-readable memory, graphical user interfaces, computing devices, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass an automation of organizing medical information and following rules to determine users allowed to access the patient health records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 30-34, 36-43 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
For example, claim 29 (and substantially similar with independent claims 44-48) recites:
A computer-implemented method of establishing a cohort to conduct research, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing in computer-readable memory: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
health records about patients, the health records about the patients including pointers to different sources that store medical data about the patients, are managed by different organizations, and are reachable over a network; and (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research;
receiving, with at least one processor, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) a request from a third party related to the research and indicative of at least one criterion for the research;
identifying, with the at least one processor(merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), individual ones of the health records about individual ones of the patients that meet the at least one criterion and that are permitted by the individual ones of the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research; and
transmitting, with the at least one processor, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) notifications to personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients(merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) to confirm whether the individual ones of the patients accept that the individual ones of the health records be used for the research;
receiving, with the at least one processor (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), data from the personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients that confirms that the individual ones of the patients, who are among the individual ones of the patients, accept that the individual ones of the health records, which are among the individual ones of the health records, be included in the cohort for the research; and
transmitting, with the at least one processor(merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients who confirmed inclusion in the cohort stored in the different sources pointed to by the pointers included in the individual ones of the health records to the third party for conducting the research.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the processor, computer-readable memory, graphical user interfaces, computing devices, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification pg. 14-15, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 30-34, 36-43 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 30-34, 36-43 additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the processor, computer-readable memory, graphical user interfaces, computing devices, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. pg. 14-15); using the processor, computer-readable memory, graphical user interfaces, computing devices, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
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.
Claims 29, 31, 34, 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford et al. (US 2012/0203798) in view of Fotsch et al. (US 8090590), Sinderbrand et al. (US 2014/0164784), and Carey et al. (CN 104054084).
Regarding claim 29, Gifford discloses a computer-implemented method of establishing a cohort to conduct research, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing in computer-readable memory: health records about patients; and (Gifford [0046] An embodiment of a patient record 218 is shown in FIG. 3A, and an embodiment of metadata 220, associated with the patient record, is shown in FIG. 3B. The patient record 218 and/or metadata 220 can include one or more portions stored in a data structure or other type of data storage system or module; [0047] The patient record 218 can include information from one or more visits to a doctor… [0049] In the foregoing description, for the purposes of illustration, methods were described in a particular order. It should be appreciated that in alternate embodiments, the methods may be performed in a different order than that described. It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware modules or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine, such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums)
information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible; (Gifford [0004] allowing a patient to have control and responsibility over their medical records. The system includes a patient-centric records server that functions as a central repository for patients' medical records. The patient can access and review their medical records. Further, to control access to some or all of the medical records, the patient also can hide one or more files within their medical records. [0055] The window 402 may represent a web page, thus this page may be composed of HTML code displayed on the user's computer 104. If the user is a new patient, the user may select the new patient user interface device 412 rather than enter the information. The selection of device 412 allows the user to establish an account with the patient-centric record server 106)
identifying, with the at least one processor, individual ones of the health records about individual ones of the patients that meet the at least one criterion and that are permitted by the individual ones of the patients to be accessible; and (Gifford fig. 4D; [0060] Upon selecting a set of files, the files matching the criteria can be presented in screen area 460. For example, screen area 460 shows representations of three records in that portion of the user interface 460. There may be more or fewer records displayed, depending on the search criteria, as represented by ellipses 461. If the user selects one of the records in section 460, the selected record may be displayed in section 462. [0061] Once displayed or by displaying and selecting several records, the patient may then select user interface devices 464 or 466. By selecting button 464, the patient may indicate that the selected records are to be hidden… For example, the user may select all records having a visit of a certain date or time, may select records having a certain doctor type or other information that may be common among two or more records. The selection of device 466 can help record different record options that may include how the records are displayed or how the records are managed [0054] user interface devices that may be used to allow the patient or doctor to interact with the patient-centric record server 106)
transmitting, with the at least one processor, data included in the individual ones of the health records to the third party for conducting the research. (Gifford [0004] As such, if a doctor accesses the medical records, the doctor only sees what the patient leaves unhidden. Thus, the system provides a means for the patient to control sensitive information within their medical records)
Gifford does not appear to explicitly disclose the following, however, Sinderbrand teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing to have:
receiving, with the at least one processor, data from the personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients that confirms that the individual ones of the patients, who are among the individual ones of the patients, accept that the individual ones of the health records, which are among the individual ones of the health records, be included in the cohort for the research; and (Sinderbrand [0039] When the public and private data set keys have been established and stored, the system may confirm patient authorization for use of patient data 560. A check may be performed to confirm that the patient allows the de-identified patient data set to be made available for data set analysis 565)
information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research; identifying patients that meet at least one criterion and that are permitted by the individual ones of the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research; (Sinderbrand [0049] FIG. 13 depicts a cohort inclusion record update process 1250, 1300 according to an embodiment of the invention. This process 1250, 1300 may be performed by one or more computers, for example the patient data set server 210, third party credentials server 220, third party key storage server 230, other computer 250, or some combination thereof. First, a patient data set whose cohort inclusion record is to be updated may be decrypted 1310, 1000. Decryption may be done according to the process described above with respect to FIG. 10, for example. Once the data set is decrypted, its cohort inclusion record may be updated 1320 with information about the cohort to which it now belongs. The updated cohort inclusion record data may be sent to the third party credentials server 220 for logging in the associated patient private storage, which may be referenced using the unique patient ID 1330. The patient data set may be encrypted 1340, 1100, for example through the process described above with respect to FIG. 11. Encrypted patient data may be monetized in some embodiments. For example, patients can opt in for clinical trial opportunities once their data set is complete. The system may locate a patient cohort based on specifications input by the client. The specifications could be any combination of variables that the data core 10 holds. An operator of the data core 10 may either sell subscription access to commercial researchers or charge per patient referral. Any patient that completes a clinical trial may receive a share of what the operator receives. After encryption is complete, the cohort record update process 1250, 1300 may end 1350, and the cohort request process 1200 (or other process, if applicable) may continue as described above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford to incorporate receiving, with the at least one processor, data from the personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients that confirms that the individual ones of the patients, who are among the individual ones of the patients, accept that the individual ones of the health records, which are among the individual ones of the health records, be included in the cohort for the research; and information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research; identifying patients that meet at least one criterion and that are permitted by the individual ones of the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research, as taught by Sinderbrand, in order to determine if the patient consented to the use of their data for analysis and to compare patients to cohorts and find wider variety of treatment options. See Sinderbrand [0023], [0039].
Gifford-Sinderbrand does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Fotsch teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing to:
receive, with at least one processor, a request from a third party related to the research and indicative of at least one criterion for the research; (Fotsch fig. 15 and corresponding text; col. 23 ln 3-50 teaches receive the transmission of e-mails, online consultation messages, compliance messages, and messages among physicians and patients related to electronic personal health records from the server 2002. The physician office servers 2008 may run software as well as store secure messages such as online consultation request)
the health records about the patients including pointers to different sources that store medical data about the patients, are managed by different organizations, and are reachable over a network; (Fotsch col 10 ln 23-36 FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating a "communications pipe" that may exist among patients and third parties such as healthcare providers and payors. In accordance with one embodiment, such a pipe may be generated as a result of the online registration process completed by the patient (or caretaker). In this simplified illustration, the communications pipe is shown as a single pipe. However, it is important to note that this example is merely illustrative, and communications and data may be transmitted among a variety of entities, such as those shown in FIG. 5. As shown, such entities include, but are not limited to, healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, hospitals, medical groups), patients or caregivers, and other third parties (e.g., payors, employers, patient advocacy and government agencies, medical societies and national experts))
transmitting at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients who confirmed inclusion in the cohort stored in the different sources pointed to by the pointers (Fotsch col 10 ln 37-42 Such transmissions may be automated, as well as initiated by a user such as a patient or caregiver, healthcare provider, or payor. The data that is transmitted may be used to update a record associated with a patient such as an electronic personal health record controlled by the patient or an electronic medical record controlled by the healthcare provider {where confirmation is taught above})
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand, as modified above, to incorporate receiving, with at least one processor, a request from a third party related to the research and indicative of at least one criterion for the research; the health records about the patients including pointers to different sources that store medical data about the patients, are managed by different organizations, and are reachable over a network; transmitting at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients stored in the different sources pointed to by the pointers, as taught by Fotsch, in order to allow the patient to maintain control over their personal health record while sharing accessible medical record information. See Fotsch col. 22 ln 32-34.
Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch does not appear to teach the following, however, Carey teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein:
transmitting, with the at least one processor, notifications to personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients to confirm whether the individual ones of the patients accept that the individual ones of the health records be used for the research; (Carey pg. 24 para. 4 If researcher wishes to comprise, in participant's license, show that they are willing to be intended to allow the participant who is asked before their accessed purposes for appointment in request of data, researcher can Request System represent that researcher sends the request of participation. This can keep anonymous by the potential candidate who guarantees research, and they have been given the chance that participates in or refuse simultaneously)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch, as modified above, to incorporate transmitting, with the at least one processor, notifications to personal computing devices of the individual ones of the patients to confirm whether the individual ones of the patients accept that the individual ones of the health records be used for the research, as taught by Carey, in order to give the patient a chance to accept or refuse to participate in the research study before being placed in the cohort. See Carey pg. 24 para. 4.
Regarding claim 31, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, and Fotsch further teaches comprising causing, with the at least one processor, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of personal computing devices of the patients to ask the patients whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research. (Fotsch col. 15 ln 46-60 FIG. 8 is an exemplary graphical user interface enabling a patient to grant access to the patient's electronic personal health record or portion thereof to an individual such as a healthcare provider. In this example, the patient (or caregiver) may grant or deny access by selecting a particular permission type for one or more individuals. In this example, each of the individuals is a healthcare provider (e.g., physician). For instance, the permission type may enable the individual to access the health record for an open-ended period of time, a single time, or until a specified date. Alternatively, the patient (or caregiver) may prevent the individual from accessing the patient's electronic personal health record by specifying that the individual has no access to view the patient's electronic personal health record by selecting the corresponding permission type).
Regarding claim 34, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 31, and Gifford further discloses comprising: receiving, with the at least one processor, data from the personal computing devices of the patients that indicates whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for inclusion in the cohort for the research; and generating the information indicative of whether the patients permit the health records about the patients to be accessible for the research based on the data from the personal computing devices of the patients. (Gifford [0004] allowing a patient to have control and responsibility over their medical records. The system includes a patient-centric records server that functions as a central repository for patients' medical records. The patient can access and review their medical records. Further, to control access to some or all of the medical records, the patient also can hide one or more files within their medical records. [0055] The window 402 may represent a web page, thus this page may be composed of HTML code displayed on the user's computer 104. If the user is a new patient, the user may select the new patient user interface device 412 rather than enter the information. The selection of device 412 allows the user to establish an account with the patient-centric record server 106 [0061] Once displayed or by displaying and selecting several records, the patient may then select user interface devices 464 or 466. By selecting button 464, the patient may indicate that the selected records are to be hidden… For example, the user may select all records having a visit of a certain date or time, may select records having a certain doctor type or other information that may be common among two or more records. The selection of device 466 can help record different record options that may include how the records are displayed or how the records are managed).
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 29, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 45, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 29, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 46, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 29, 31, 34, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 47, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 29, 31, 34, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in the rejection of claim 29, 31, 34, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey in view of Zhao et al. (US 2013/0208955).
Regarding claim 30, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Zhao teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein comprising anonymizing, with the at least one processor, the data about the individual ones of the patients such that the data about the individual ones of the patients is anonymized before the transmitting. (Zhao [0096] According to one embodiment, each of data gateway managers 901-902 includes a data anonymizer such as anonymizers 909-910, prior to transmitting medical data to cloud 103 or amongst data centers 101-102, configured to anonymize certain information from the medical data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey, as modified above, to incorporate anonymizing, with the at least one processor the data about the individual ones of the patients such that the data about the individual ones of the patients is anonymized before the transmitting as taught by Zhao in order to remove identifying data to make transferring files more efficient. See Zhao [0098].
Claims 32-33, 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey in view of Holla et al. (US 2008/0021834).
Regarding claim 32, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 31, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Holla teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein comprising authenticating the patients via the personal computing devices of the patients. (Holla [0230] Other user authentication embodiments may include multi-level user passwords for accessing or authorizing critical data, biometric scanners on the handheld (e.g., fingerprint or iris scanners), voice print matching algorithms and other biometric signature matching equipment or algorithms that can allow access to one or more layers of data on the system, console and/or handheld device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey, as modified above, to incorporate authenticating the patients via the personal computing devices of the patients as taught by Holla in order to process sensitive patient medical information over a server without compromising critical information or reducing the security of the overall data. See Holla [0006].
Regarding claim 33, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey-Holla teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 32, and Holla further teaches wherein the authenticating comprises authenticating the patients with a biometric identification capability of the personal computing devices of the patients. (Holla [0230] Other user authentication embodiments may include multi-level user passwords for accessing or authorizing critical data, biometric scanners on the handheld (e.g., fingerprint or iris scanners), voice print matching algorithms and other biometric signature matching equipment or algorithms that can allow access to one or more layers of data on the system, console and/or handheld device). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 37, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Holla teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the at least one criterion for the research includes at least one of a disorder, an infection, a disability, and an injury. (Holla [0032] Accessibility to medical records is particularly important when effective diagnosis and treatment depends on timely assessment of medical data. In many instances, quick diagnosis and proper treatment of an illness, injury or condition can mean the difference between life and death). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 38, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Holla teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the at least one criterion for the research includes at least one of a blood test, a urine test, and a medical image. (Holla [0041] Examples of the types of data managed and communicated to a physician's mobile device include: patient demographic data, such as name, age, sex, current medications, prior diagnosis, etc.; time-variant one-dimensional data, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms; still or moving images, such as ultrasound, X-ray, and catheterization lab images; laboratory results, such as cholesterol levels, urine test results, blood dissolved oxygen levels, etc.; and/or measurements of critical patient parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 39, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey-Holla teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 37, and Holla further teaches wherein the at least one criterion for the research includes at least one of a blood test, a urine test, and a medical image. (Holla [0041] Examples of the types of data managed and communicated to a physician's mobile device include: patient demographic data, such as name, age, sex, current medications, prior diagnosis, etc.; time-variant one-dimensional data, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms; still or moving images, such as ultrasound, X-ray, and catheterization lab images; laboratory results, such as cholesterol levels, urine test results, blood dissolved oxygen levels, etc.; and/or measurements of critical patient parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 40, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Holla teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the at least one criterion for the research is a plurality of criteria for the research. (Holla [0041] Examples of the types of data managed and communicated to a physician's mobile device include: patient demographic data, such as name, age, sex, current medications, prior diagnosis, etc.; time-variant one-dimensional data, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms; still or moving images, such as ultrasound, X-ray, and catheterization lab images; laboratory results, such as cholesterol levels, urine test results, blood dissolved oxygen levels, etc.; and/or measurements of critical patient parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 41, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey-Holla teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 40, and Holla further teaches wherein a first one of the criteria for the research includes at least one of a disorder, an infection, a disability, and an injury and a second one of the criteria for the research includes at least one of a blood test, a urine test, and a medical image. (Holla [0032] Accessibility to medical records is particularly important when effective diagnosis and treatment depends on timely assessment of medical data. In many instances, quick diagnosis and proper treatment of an illness, injury or condition can mean the difference between life and death [0041] Examples of the types of data managed and communicated to a physician's mobile device include: patient demographic data, such as name, age, sex, current medications, prior diagnosis, etc.; time-variant one-dimensional data, such as electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms; still or moving images, such as ultrasound, X-ray, and catheterization lab images; laboratory results, such as cholesterol levels, urine test results, blood dissolved oxygen levels, etc.; and/or measurements of critical patient parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey in view of Marchosky (US 2004/0117215).
Regarding claim 36, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, and Gifford further discloses comprising noting in the computer-readable memory (Gifford [0046] An embodiment of a patient record 218 is shown in FIG. 3A, and an embodiment of metadata 220, associated with the patient record, is shown in FIG. 3B. The patient record 218 and/or metadata 220 can include one or more portions stored in a data structure or other type of data storage system or module). But Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey does not appear to teach the following, however, Marchosky teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing:
that the individual ones of the patients are to be financially compensated for the at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients. (Marchosky [0220] In one embodiment, the method includes permitting a payer approved by the particular patient to access the record of the particular patient to verify treatment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey, as modified above, to incorporate that the individual ones of the patients are to be financially compensated for the at least part of the medical data about the individual ones of the patients as taught by Marchosky in order to allow the patient to determine who to share their information with and to aid healthcare professionals in diagnosing conditions to determine best medical treatments. See Marchosky [0010]-[0012].
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey in view of Moore (US 2008/0040151).
Regarding claim 42, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, but does not appear to teach the following, however, Moore teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the third party is a pharmaceutical company. (Moore [0944] Practitioners of ordinary skill in the art will readily discern that the systems and methods of the present invention are useful in therapeutic, diagnostic and administrative settings in a health care facility. With more specificity, these systems and methods may be useful for managing a diagnostic system, a therapeutic system, an administrative system or some combination thereof in a health care facility. As used herein, the term health care facility includes hospitals, clinics, outpatient centers, community health centers, nursing homes, hospices and home care settings, school health facilities, doctors' offices, mobile health facilities, morgues, mobile emergency or disaster response units, ambulances, labs, pharmacies, or any place, location, facility where health or medical care and/or information relating to health or medical care is offered and/or provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey, as modified above, to incorporate wherein the third party is a pharmaceutical company as taught by Moore so as to allow the pharmaceutical company to better track patient updates over time relating to their treatments. See Moore [0592].
Regarding claim 43, Gifford-Sinderbrand-Fotsch-Carey-Moore teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, and Moore further teaches wherein the third party is a biomedical company. (Moore [0944] Practitioners of ordinary skill in the art will readily discern that the systems and methods of the present invention are useful in therapeutic, diagnostic and administrative settings in a health care facility. With more specificity, these systems and methods may be useful for managing a diagnostic system, a therapeutic system, an administrative system or some combination thereof in a health care facility. As used herein, the term health care facility includes hospitals, clinics, outpatient centers, community health centers, nursing homes, hospices and home care settings, school health facilities, doctors' offices, mobile health facilities, morgues, mobile emergency or disaster response units, ambulances, labs, pharmacies, or any place, location, facility where health or medical care and/or information relating to health or medical care is offered and/or provided {facility where health and information relating to health or medical care is provided is construed as a biomedical company}). The motivations to combine the above references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where