Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/200,977

PATIENT RECORD IDENTIFICATION FOR MEDICAL SYSTEMS WITH UNAUTHENTICATED USERS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 23, 2023
Priority
May 27, 2022 — provisional 63/346,458
Examiner
SHITAYEWOLDETSADI, BERHANU
Art Unit
2455
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Cardinal Health Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
329 granted / 391 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
407
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
65.1%
+25.1% vs TC avg
§102
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 391 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed on 01/26/2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account. Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-4, 6-17 and 22-24 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 14 recite “execute a hashing operation of the salt value against a set of possible patients to determine which patient is associated with a given identification string" and "execute the hashing operation repeatedly until a hash value is obtained matching the given identification string" and "when the hash value matching the given identification string is obtained, identify a patient correlated to the given identification string”. See Examiner’s amendment. The Applicant’s specification on pages 10-11 recite “If salt values are retained, then it is possible to execute the hashing operation against a set of possible patients in order to determine which patient is associated with a given identification string 310. For example, in some embodiments, a system can be configured to later use known salt values and a list of possible patients (such as might be attainable from a medical records system) and then execute the hashing operation repeatedly until a hash value is obtained matching a given identification string 310. Referring now to FIG. 9, a schematic view of operations 900 is shown in accordance with various embodiments herein. Inputs can include a set of possible patients 902 along with a set of stored salt values 904. Then, the system can execute hashing operations 308 using different possible patients 902 and different salt values 904 to obtain hashed outputs that might be the same as a given identification string 310 from stored records 312 which can be determined in a matching operation 910. If a match is found, then the system can identify the patient 912 correlated to the given identification string 310”. However, Applicant’s original disclosure does not describe the exact methodology that is applied to achieve the intended result described. There are a multitude of hashing algorithms and methodologies for utilizing a hashing salt to reverse engineer calculate a hash value that was generated with said salt. It is also unclear what constitutes "...a list of possible patients..." or "...a set of possible patients..." with respect to what kind of data that is for feeding into the hashing algorithm and how that works. Without specifics as to how and which methodology/methodologies applicants are utilizing for accomplishing their intended result, applicants fail to meet requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description as having been in possession of their claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would not have been conveyed the necessary details to be shown that applicants were in possession of their invention as applicants' specification does not capture how applicants accomplish their intent. Therefore, previously allowed claims 1-4, 6-17 and 22-24 have been withdrawn and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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. /BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Mar 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 11, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 04, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12739219
DYNAMIC PRIORITIZATION OF EMAIL MESSAGES WITH UNDO FUNCTIONALITY IN AN IMMERSIVE ENVIRONMENT
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12726520
ENTITY POLICY CONTEXTS FOR SECURE DNS RESOLUTION
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12717612
MANAGEMENT AND ORCHESTRATION OF MICROSERVICES
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12712873
Cross-Tenancy Resource Association For Container Orchestration System
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12712841
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER COMMUNICATION IN A NETWORK
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.4%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 391 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month