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 .
Notice to Applicant
Examiner notes that dependent claims 39-40 were previously canceled, as per the claim set filed 11/13/2024, and therefore remain canceled. Therefore, claims 29-30, 32-38, 41-57, 59-60, 62-63 are pending and currently examined.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 103
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have attempted to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Office. The rationale contained in Malven is not relevant to either Griffin or the instant application. Griffin is concerned with giving third parties access to medical records. The instant application is concerned with securely managing transmitted patient health records.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as discussed below with Malven, the point of the transmission is to allow the provider to view the medical records. From this viewing the doctor can properly manage the medical information and make proper determination, such as, suggesting follow up appointments, doctor visits, etc. This management of the transmitted medical information for viewing is relevant to Griffin’s concerns of accessing medical records as well as the instant application of transmitting patient health records in order to manage those health records of the patient. Therefore the cited prior art is pertinent to the problem trying to be solved.
Applicant argues that Crapo does not teach rendering medical information invisible after being shown at the computing device so that it is no longer visible at the computing device after being displayed.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Crapo teaches that the authorization allows for certain types of data to be presented for selection and sharing and then that information can have a time limit when the information is displayed after which the information is no longer shown/visible (i.e., invisible) or the selected information can be selected to not allow access to that information and thus it is also invisible. See the rejection below.
Regarding Claim 60, the prior art does not teach transmitting a notice over the data network as claimed. The art does not teach sending the notice if the medical information about the patients was not viewed after a set period of time.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Crapo at [0068] and [0075] teaches keeping a timed activity logs that tracks views of patient data which would show whether or not the patient’s data is viewed after a set period of time. The combination of this teaching with Malven that teaches transmitting notices teaches Applicant’s updated claimed limitation. See the updated rejection below for further clarification.
Weiss does not teach deleting information after the data is shown for claim 59.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Griffin-Malven-Crapo is used to teach the rendering of information invisible after showing it at the computing device. Weiss as taught below is used for the act of deleting data. The combination of the references is used to teach the limitation. Additionally, Weiss at [0097] discusses how the data being presented done so to authorized users. Therefore it is construed that the information would be deleted after being shown, where the information was previously taught to be medical information about a patient by Griffin-Malven-Crapo. See the rejection below.
Weiss is non-analogous art and thus cannot be relied upon to reject the claims under 103. Being “related to data security” is too broad a category for a reference to be considered analogous prior art. The reference is neither in the same field of endeavor nor reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. The claimed invention in claim 59 is generally related to data security of transmitted medical information.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Weiss reference is considered a reference reasonably pertinent to the problem inventors face in their claimed invention. By their own admission, they face data security problems, namely, “securely managing transmitted patient health records.” (See Remarks pg. 11). Weiss teaches a universal secure registry to enable a person to be accurately be identified or authenticated to gain access to a secure system and also teaches deleting data, which is another way to ‘securely manage records’. These problems are related to data security and thus the reference is analogous and pertinent to the problem being solved.
Weiss does not teach “medical information”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, “medical information” was taught in the independent claim (claim 29) by Malven. Weiss is used for the deletion of data. The combination of references teaches the claim.
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are like Example 42 and do not recite a judicial exception and is integrated into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claim recites limitations directed at following rules for managing patient data, which falls under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions) and therefore the grouping of organizing human activity. Additionally, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the claims recite rendering medical information about the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device. This improves the computer functionality by making it more secure. It does not merely invoke the use of a computer as a tool.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements do not amount to an improvement in the computer function since they recite computer components at a high level of generality (e.g., processor, data network, etc.). These additional elements amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the rendering limitation is part of the abstract idea and not considered an additional limitation. See the updated rejection below.
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 29-30, 32-38, 41-57, 59-60, 62-63 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 29-30, 32-38, 41-54, 57, 59-60, 62-63 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 55 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus). Claims 56 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, 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 55-57, 59-60) recites:
A method of managing health records regarding patients, the health records being stored in source systems distributed in a data network, the method comprising executing with at least one processor a plurality of steps comprising:
communicating with the source systems over the data network;
receiving a request to view at least one of the health records regarding a given one of the patients at a computing device remote from the source systems over the data network;
determining that the given one of the patients authorizes medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the computing device;
transmitting the medical information about the given one of the patients to the computing device over the data network;
displaying the medical information; and
rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device so that it is no longer visible at the computing device after being displayed.
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 source system, network, processor, computing device, computer-readable memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass an automation of organizing medical information and following a process or rules for determining access authorization in order to view and managing patient medical information. 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, 32-38, 41-54, 62-63 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 55-57, 59-60) recites:
A method of managing health records regarding patients, the health records being stored in source systems distributed in a data network, the method comprising executing with at least one processor a plurality of steps comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
communicating with the source systems over the data network; (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving a request to view at least one of the health records regarding a given one of the patients at a computing device remote from the source systems over the data network; (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
determining that the given one of the patients authorizes medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the computing device; (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting the medical information about the given one of the patients to the computing device over the data network; (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
displaying the medical information; and (merely insignificant extrasolution activity steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device so that it is no longer visible at the computing device after being displayed. (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
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 source system, network, processor, computing device, computer-readable memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification pg. 1, 14-15, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of displaying medical information amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 30, 32-38, 41-54, 62-63 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 30, 32-38, 41-54, 62-63 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 and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. 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 source system, network, processor, computing device, computer-readable memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, 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. 1, 14-15); using network, processor, computing device, computer-readable memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, 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).
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application. The following represent examples that courts have identified as insignificant extrasolution activities (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)): displaying medical information amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity, e.g., outputting or providing access to the information, MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
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.
Claim 29-30, 34-36, 38, 41, 46-48, 51-57, 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2013/0346103) in view of Malven et al. (US 2014/0156299) and Crapo et al. (US 2012/0203571).
Regarding claim 29, Griffin discloses a method of managing health records regarding patients, the health records being stored in source systems distributed in a data network, the method comprising executing with at least one processor a plurality of steps comprising: (Griffin Figs. 1-3 and corresponding text)
communicating with the source systems over the data network; (Griffin [0031] FIG. 2 includes a third-party user computing device 210, a clinical trial manager 212, and an electronic medical record (EMR) system 214. The computing device 210, the clinical trial manager 212, and the EMR system 214 may all be in communication with one another via a network)
receiving a request to view at least one of the health records regarding a given one of the patients at a computing device remote from the source systems over the data network; (Griffin [0042] Continuing with FIG. 2, at a step 226, a request 228 from the third-party user computing device 210 is received by the clinical trial manager 212. The request 228 is a request to view the electronic medical record (EMR) of a participant)
determining authorization of medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the computing device; (Griffin [0050] At a step 326, the clinical trial manager 312 determines viewing rights and access rights associated with the set(s) of authorization/authentication credentials. Like above, the viewing and access rights may be based on a role (e.g., a clinical monitoring role) associated with the set of authorization/authentication credentials. Alternatively, the viewing and the access rights may be based on a user identity associated with the set of authorization/authentication credentials)
While Griffin discloses viewing the medical information, it does not appear to disclose transmitting the information over a network. However, Malven teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein:
transmitting the medical information about the given one of the patients to the computing device over the data network; and (Malven [0037] discloses at block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations. In some circumstances, the HCS 100 may transmit the medical report to the physician user to enable the physician user to verbally deliver the results to the patient user)
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 Griffin to incorporate transmitting the medical information about the given one of the patients to the computing device over the data network as taught by Malven in order to allow the doctor to view the medical information, thereby determining if a consultation is needed without having to expend unnecessary time to go for a visit unless warranted by their medical information. See Malven [0005-[0007].
Griffin-Malven does not appear to explicitly the following, however, Crapo teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein:
determining that the given one of the patients authorizes medical information; (Crapo [0082] teaches the patient can allow access to certain types of data, where the patient can select which data type is to be shared [0083] teaches not allowing access to the other data unless they have been authorized)
displaying the medical information (Crapo [0083] teaches that if the user is allowed to view the patient data, the user interface engine 213 generates a user interface that includes the patient data thus displaying the information)
rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patient is shown at the computing device so that it is no longer visible at the computing device after being displayed (Crapo [0058] teaches providing access to the patient data for a time limit and then preventing access when the time has expired [0082] teaches the patient can allow access to certain types of data, where the patient can select which data type is to be shared [0083] teaches not allowing access to the other data unless they have been authorized [0084] teaches breaking glass to view patient data and indicating a period of time for that access to the data {construed as information presented and then being no longer invisible at the computing device when access expires}).
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 Griffin-Malven, as modified above, to incorporate determining that the given one of the patients authorizes medical information; displaying the medical information; rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patient is shown at the computing device so that it is no longer visible at the computing device after being displayed, as taught by Crapo, in order to give the patient the authority to decide what records they want to share or not share. See Crapo [0071].
Regarding claim 30, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and Crapo further teaches wherein the steps comprise authenticating a user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device. (Crapo [0083] teaches not allowing access to the other data unless they have been authorized)
Regarding claim 34, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 30, and Malven further teaches wherein the user of the computing device is the given one of the patients. (Malven [0037] discloses at block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations. In some circumstances, the HCS 100 may transmit the medical report to the physician user to enable the physician user to verbally deliver the results to the patient user).
Regarding claim 35, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 30, and Malven further teaches wherein the user of the computing device is a third party distinct from the given one of the patients. (Malven [0037] discloses at block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations. In some circumstances, the HCS 100 may transmit the medical report to the physician user to enable the physician user to verbally deliver the results to the patient user).
Regarding claim 36, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 35, and Malven further teaches wherein the third party is a physician. (Malven [0037] discloses at block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations. In some circumstances, the HCS 100 may transmit the medical report to the physician user to enable the physician user to verbally deliver the results to the patient user).
Regarding claim 38, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and Crapo further teaches wherein: the computing device is a third-party computing device of a third party distinct from the given one of the patients; and the determining that the given one of the patients authorizes the medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the third-party computing device comprises obtaining an authorization from a personal computing device of the given one of the patients over the data network that authorizes the medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the third- party computing device. (Crapo [0086] teaches that by the patient consenting to sharing, only the selected data will be shared while other data is inaccessible to the user, construed as blocking access [0091] teaches the system determining if the user is allowed to access the confidential information and if they are then presenting the information on their interface, but if the user is not authorized then the method ends without sharing the information).
Regarding claim 41, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and Crapo further teaches wherein the rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device comprises rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after a set period of time after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device. (Crapo [0058] teaches providing access to the patient data for a time limit and then preventing access when the time has expired).
Regarding claim 46, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, wherein steps comprise noting if the medical information about the given one of the patients was not viewed at the computing device after a set period of time. (Crapo [0068] The logging/auditing unit 207 creates a common event log to record each time a user accesses or modifies a patient record or piece of clinical information. For example, the logging/auditing unit 207 tracks when a user changes or adds patient/clinical data. In another example, the logging/auditing unit 207 logs user activity when a user queries/requests patient data or views the patient data; [0075] the report is displayed to an administrator for determining whether inappropriate access by a user occurred. In one embodiment, the report indicates how many times a user broke glass during a period of time. In another embodiment, the report indicates user access to a specific set of patients).
Regarding claim 47, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 46, wherein the steps comprise transmitting a reminder to the computing device over the data network to indicate that the medical information about the given one of the patients is viewable at the computing device if the medical information about the given one of the patients was not viewed at the computing device after the set period of time. (Crapo [0058] teaches providing access to the patient data for a time limit and then preventing access when the time has expired).
Regarding claim 48, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and Malven further teaches wherein the steps comprise transmitting a notice along with the medical information about the given one of the patients to the computing device over the data network to request an action by a user of the computing device. (Malven [0080] discloses notifying the patient that the medical report is available, which is done by sending an e-mail or text message to the patient’s mobile computing system and the message includes a hyperlink to the secure location to view the medical report [0028] discloses the communication engine 150 generates a user interface that is displayed (Malven [0037] a plan for a follow up consultation).
Regarding claim 51, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 48, and Malven further teaches wherein the action comprises a scheduling of an appointment by the user. (Malven [0037] teaches a plan for a follow up consultation).
Regarding claim 52, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 48, and Malven further teaches wherein the action comprises an obtention of a prescription by the user. (Malven [0036] The HCS 100 coordinates generation of a prescription (from a physician user, if necessary) for administering the medical tests to the patient user. Such prescription is generated in accordance with the responses provided by the patient user and regulations stored in the regulations database 106. The HCS 100 obtains from the patient user a selection of a testing facility from the identified testing facilities to administer the medical tests. The prescription is provided to the patient user and transmitted to the selected testing facility system 122).
Regarding claim 53, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and Malven further teaches wherein the source systems are operated and managed by different entities. (Malven Fig. 1 and corresponding text; [0018] Similarly, the physician system 120, the medical test facility system 122, the insurance submission and adjudication system 124, the insurance claim submission and adjudication system 126, and the credit card payment system 128 are also computers, mobile communication devices, or other computing devices and the HCS 100 communicates with such systems over a public or private network; [0037] At block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations
Regarding claim 54, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 53, and Malven further teaches wherein the different entities include at least two of a physician, a hospital, a clinic, a pharmacy, a laboratory, a health maintenance organization, and a governmental institution. (Malven Fig. 1 and corresponding text; [0018] Similarly, the physician system 120, the medical test facility system 122, the insurance submission and adjudication system 124, the insurance claim submission and adjudication system 126, and the credit card payment system 128 are also computers, mobile communication devices, or other computing devices and the HCS 100 communicates with such systems over a public or private network; [0037] At block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations)
Regarding claim 55, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 29, and as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 56, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 29, and as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 57, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 29, and as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above. The slight differences are additionally taught by Crapo: authenticating a user of the computing device prior to every instance of showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device. (Crapo [0082] teaches the patient can allow access to certain types of data, where the patient can select which data type is to be shared [0083] teaches not allowing access to the other data unless they have been authorized).
Regarding claim 60, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 29 and 46, and as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above. Additionally, Malven teaches transmitting a notice over the data network (Malven [0018] The HCS 100 and the systems 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, and 128 may also operate over a cellular network or other communication networks apparent to those of skill in the art [0037] discloses at block 198, HCS 100 transmits the medical report to the patient user, the physician user, or both in accordance with the medical recommendation and state and federal regulations. In some circumstances, the HCS 100 may transmit the medical report to the physician user to enable the physician user to verbally deliver the results to the patient user [0080] After block 410, the reporting engine 168 makes the medical report generated thereby available to the patient user in a secure section of the patient communication engine 150 and notifies the patient user that such report is available. In one embodiment, the patient communication engine 150 sends an e-mail and/or a text message to the patient system 118).
Claim 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2013/0346103) in view of Malven et al. (US 2014/0156299), Crapo et al. (US 2012/0203571), and Holla et al. (US 2008/0021834).
Regarding claim 32, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 30, 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 authenticating the user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device comprises authenticating the user of the computing device at least with a biometric identifier of the user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device. (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 Griffin-Malven-Crapo, as modified above, to incorporate wherein the authenticating the user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device comprises authenticating the user of the computing device at least with a biometric identifier of the user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device 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, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 30, 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 authenticating the user of the computing device prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device comprises authenticating the user of the computing device with multi-factor authentication prior to showing the medical information about the given one of the patients at the computing device. (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.
Claim 37, 44, 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2013/0346103) in view of Malven et al. (US 2014/0156299), Crapo et al. (US 2012/0203571), and Gifford et al. (US 2012/0203798).
Regarding claim 37, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Gifford teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein: the computing device is a personal computing device of the given one of the patients; and the determining that the given one of the patients authorizes the medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the computing device comprises determining that the given one of the patients was previously authenticated and confirmed to be using the personal computing device. (Gifford [0066] If the patient is not new, the patient sends the user name and password from the patient computer 104 to the patient-centric record server 106, in step 508. The login information is received, by the patient-centric record server 106, in step 538, where the patient-centric record server 106 authorizes the patient to view their files).
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 Griffin-Malven-Crapo, as modified above, to incorporate the computing device is a personal computing device of the given one of the patients; and the determining that the given one of the patients authorizes the medical information about the given one of the patients conveyed by the at least one of the health records regarding the given one of the patients to be shown at the computing device comprises determining that the given one of the patients was previously authenticated and confirmed to be using the personal computing device as taught by Gifford in order to allow the patient to have control over their medical records and prevent unfettered access without their knowledge and consent. See Gifford [0003]-[0004].
Regarding claim 44, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Gifford teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein steps comprise receiving an indication that the medical information about the given one of the patients was viewed at the computing device. (Gifford Figs. 4A-E and corresponding text; [0054]-[0058] teaches a GUI of the patient where they can view and manage their records by selecting the appropriate buttons). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 49, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 48, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Gifford teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the action comprises an acknowledgement by the user. (Gifford Figs. 4A-E and corresponding text; [0054]-[0058] teaches a GUI of the patient where they can view and manage their records by selecting the appropriate buttons). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 50, Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Gifford teaches the method of claim 49, and Gifford further teaches wherein the acknowledgement by the user acknowledges that the medical information about the given one of the patients was viewed at the computing device. (Gifford Figs. 4A-E and corresponding text; [0054]-[0058] teaches a GUI of the patient where they can view and manage their records by selecting the appropriate buttons). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claim 42-43, 59, 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2013/0346103) in view of Malven et al. (US 2014/0156299), Crapo et al. (US 2012/0203571), and Weiss (US 2020/0034850).
Regarding claim 42, Griffin-Malven-Crapo teaches the method of claim 29, and wherein the rendering the medical information about the given one of the patients invisible at the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device comprises, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Weiss teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing to delete the medical information about the given one of the patients from the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device. (Weiss [0186] If the first device does not communicate with the secure database at such periodic intervals at step 208, then the first device can be configured to delete any or a portion of the data stored in memory at step 206 {the medical information about a patient is taught above} [0097] discusses how the data being presented done so to authorized users {it is construed that the information would be deleted after being shown}).
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 Griffin-Malven-Crapo, as modified above, to incorporate deleting the medical information about the given one of the patients from the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device as taught by Weiss in order to properly authenticate authorized users and prevent individuals from compromising the security of the system and data. See Weiss [0012].
Regarding claim 43, Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Weiss teaches the method of claim 42, and Weiss further teaches wherein the deleting the medical information about the given one of the patients from the computing device after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device comprises deleting the medical information about the given one of the patients from the computing device after a set period of time after the medical information about the given one of the patients is shown at the computing device. (Weiss [0186] If the first device does not communicate with the secure database at such periodic intervals at step 208, then the first device can be configured to delete any or a portion of the data stored in memory at step 206). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 59, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 29 and 42, and as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding claim 62, Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Weiss teaches the method of claim 59, and Weiss further teaches wherein deleting the medical information comprises deleting the medical information from a volatile memory of the computing device. (Weiss [0186] If the first device does not communicate with the secure database at such periodic intervals at step 208, then the first device can be configured to delete any or a portion of the data stored in memory at step 206; [0083] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, a computer system 10 for implementing a USR system according to the invention includes at least one main unit 12 connected to a wide area network, such as the Internet, via a communications port 14. The main unit 12 may include one or more processors (CPU 16) running USR software 18 configured to implement the USR system functionality discussed in greater detail below. The CPU 16 may be connected to a memory system including one or more memory devices, such as a random access memory system RAM 20, a read only memory system ROM 22, and one or more databases 24. In the illustrated embodiment, the database 24 contains a universal secure registry database. The invention is not limited to this particular manner of storing the USR database. Rather, the USR database may be included in any aspect of the memory system, such as in RAM 20, ROM 22 or disc, and may also be separately stored on one or more dedicated data servers). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 63, Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Weiss teaches the method of claim 59, and Weiss further teaches wherein deleting the medical information comprises deleting the medical information from a persistent memory of the computing device. (Weiss [0186] If the first device does not communicate with the secure database at such periodic intervals at step 208, then the first device can be configured to delete any or a portion of the data stored in memory at step 206; [0083] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, a computer system 10 for implementing a USR system according to the invention includes at least one main unit 12 connected to a wide area network, such as the Internet, via a communications port 14. The main unit 12 may include one or more processors (CPU 16) running USR software 18 configured to implement the USR system functionality discussed in greater detail below. The CPU 16 may be connected to a memory system including one or more memory devices, such as a random access memory system RAM 20, a read only memory system ROM 22, and one or more databases 24. In the illustrated embodiment, the database 24 contains a universal secure registry database. The invention is not limited to this particular manner of storing the USR database. Rather, the USR database may be included in any aspect of the memory system, such as in RAM 20, ROM 22 or disc, and may also be separately stored on one or more dedicated data servers). The motivations to combine the above reference is discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2013/0346103) in view of Malven et al. (US 2014/0156299), Crapo et al. (US 2012/0203571), Gifford et al. (US 2012/0203798), and Tara et al. (US 2014/0358574).
Regarding claim 45, Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Gifford teaches the method of claim 44, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Tara teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the indication that the medical information about the given one of the patients was viewed at the computing device is a read- receipt. (Tara [0096] If contact fails or is unsuccessful, then the medical communication system may take a message at step 236. The message may be taken by the medical communication system itself or by forwarding or allowing a call to be forwarded to a voicemail or similar service. At a step 240, the medical communication system may receive a read receipt or other status notification regarding the message).
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 Griffin-Malven-Crapo-Gifford, as modified above, to incorporate wherein the indication that the medical information about the given one of the patients was viewed at the computing device is a read- receipt as taught by Tara in order to know whether the information was read so that further action can be taken based on this information rather than waiting around and not knowing. See Tara [0096].
Conclusion
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 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 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
