DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract
idea without significantly more.
Step 1Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, Claims 1-20
are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 19 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1:
An examination information management system comprising:
a transmitter that transmits, to a user terminal used by a user, examination information regarding an examination performed in association with medical treatment;
and a hardware processor that controls transmission to the user terminal by the transmitter, in accordance with a characteristic that is set for the user and is for indicating a range of the examination information accessible by the user,
wherein by control according to the characteristic, the hardware processor enables transmission of the examination information to the user terminal even when the user is a person other than a person in charge of the medical treatment.
wherein the characteristic is entered into the system by the person in charge and stored in a storage portion of the hardware processor;
wherein the examination information provided to the user terminal is utilized in medical treatment of a patient.
*Claim 19 recites similar limitation as claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The recitation of generic computer components/functions (controlling, enabling, and providing) covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. a processor and user terminal), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to collect and process data), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “a transmitter that transmits, to a user terminal used by a user, examination information regarding an examination performed in association with medical treatment”, “processor”, and “user terminal”, and “wherein the characteristic is entered into the system by the person in charge and stored in a storage portion of the hardware processor”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a processor and user terminal. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “a transmitter that transmits, to a user terminal used by a user, examination information regarding an examination performed in association with medical treatment” and ““wherein the characteristic is entered into the system(input) by the person in charge and stored in a storage portion of the hardware processor”
Dependent claims 2, 6-10, 12-15, and 18 recite transmitter/transmit
Dependent claims 2-4, 12-18, and 20 recite processor
Dependent claims 13-15 recite receiver
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a processor and receiver. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of transmit/transmitter
Dependent claims 5, 11, and 16-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-18, and 20 and independent claims 1 and 19, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. 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 any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 19 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: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Transmitter/transmit which means to broadcast or send out and carry signals or messages (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Inputting data which is the process of providing information to a computer or software program to be processed (Nammi(US 20200260465 A1) discloses: “The user input component 1034 can include such conventional input device technologies such as a keypad, keyboard, mouse, stylus pen, and/or touch screen, for example.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Storing data which is the process of preserving digital information using technology for later retrieval and use(Pace(US 20200351405 A1) discloses: “The storage device 220, for example, may take the form of any conventional storage medium and may be locally housed or operated from a remote location. “) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 5, 11, and 16-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 19 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-18, and 20. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 19, hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, and 11-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown(US11075754B2).
As per claim 1, Brown discloses:
An examination information management system comprising: a transmitter that transmits(Figure 1, #115, Brown discloses a database server which acts as a transmitter), to a user terminal(Col. 4, Line 12, Brown discloses: “terminal”) used by a user(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient, medical professionals, and insurance personnel)”), examination information regarding an examination(Col. 7, Line 2, Brown discloses: “medical data”[MEDICAL DATA CAN INCLUDE EXAMINATION INFORMAION]) performed in association with medical treatment(Figure 5, Brown discloses “anticipated treatment” [CAN BE MEDICAL TREATMENT]); and a hardware processor(Col. 8, Line 53, Brown discloses: “ various types of processors”) that controls transmission(Figure 1, #117, Brown discloses a controller that controls transmission) to the user terminal(Col. 4, Line 24, Brown discloses: “user interface device”[CAN BE CONSIDERED A USER TERMINAL]) by the transmitter, in accordance with a characteristic that is set for the user(Figure 5, Brown discloses public, private, and write access which are characteristics set for the user) and is for indicating a range of the examination information accessible by the user(Figure 5, Brown discloses the information range for public and private characteristics), wherein by control according to the characteristic, the hardware processor enables transmission of the examination information to the user terminal even(Figure 7, #712, Brown discloses transmitting a medical data segment to a client/host) when the user is a person other than a person in charge of the medical treatment(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient[CAN BE A USER NOT IN CHARGE OF MEDICAL TREATMENT], medical professionals, and insurance personnel[CAN BE A USER NOT IN CHARGE OF MEDICAL TREATMENT])”); wherein the characteristic is entered into the system by the person in charge and stored in a storage portion of the hardware processor(Figure 2, #230, Brown discloses an input/output interface where information can be entered into the system); wherein the examination information provided to the user terminal is utilized in medical treatment of a patient(Col. 7, Line 31, Brown discloses an update to a treatment plan[MEDICAL TREATMENT OF A PATIENT] by a medical professional[PERSON IN CHARGE]).
As per claim 2, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor causes the transmitter to transmit, to the user(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient, medical professionals, and insurance personnel)”), the examination information(Col. 7, Line 2, Brown discloses: “medical data”[MEDICAL DATA CAN INCLUDE EXAMINATION INFORMAION]) included in a range(Figure 5, Brown discloses the information range for public and private characteristics) indicated by the characteristic(Figure 5, Brown discloses public, private, and write access which are characteristics set for the user).
As per claim 3, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic is independently set for a plurality of the users, and the hardware processor enables the transmission, to the user, of the examination information(Col. 7, Line 2, Brown discloses: “medical data”[MEDICAL DATA CAN INCLUDE EXAMINATION INFORMAION]) included in a range(Figure 5, Brown discloses the information range for public and private characteristics) indicated by a characteristic(Figure 5, Brown discloses public, private, and write access which are characteristics set for the user) set for each of the users(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient, medical professionals, and insurance personnel)”).
As per claim 4, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein a characteristic according to a characteristic(Figure 5, Brown discloses public, private, and write access which are characteristics set for the user) indicating an attribute(Figure 5, Brown discloses general, diagnostic, medical profession, and insurance, which can be considered attributes) related to a belonging destination(Figure 5, Brown discloses individual, medical professional, and insurance company, which can indicate a belonged destination) of the user is set to the user(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient, medical professionals, and insurance personnel)”), and the hardware processor enables the transmission, to the user, of the examination information included in the set range(Figure 7, #712, Brown discloses: “Controller forwards[TRANSMIT] data segment[EXAMINATION INFORMATION IN SET RANGE] to client/host[USER]”).
As per claim 5, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 4, wherein the attribute regarding a belonging destination(Figure 5, Brown discloses individual, medical professional, and insurance company, which can indicate a belonged destination) of the user(Col. 3, Line 59, Brown discloses: “medical database repository that is remotely accessible by a number of users (such as patient, medical professionals, and insurance personnel)”) is any of a medical institution to which the user belongs, a clinical department to which the user belongs(Col. 1, Line 44, Brown discloses: “individual medical databases may exist that may contain a patient's medical history as it relates to a particular group of doctors[GROUP OF DOCTORS CAN INDICATE A CLINICAL DEPARTMENT], hospitals[INSTITUTION], or insurance carriers….”) , and whether or not the user is a person in charge of the medical treatment.
As per claim 6, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter transmits a result report regarding the examination(Col. 2, Line 8, Brown discloses: “A plurality of data types is organized for the medical data [MEDICAL DATA CAN INCLUDE A RESULT REPORT REGARDING AN EXAMINATION]) to the user(Figure 5, #504, Brown discloses private info/test results which can be sent to a user with private read access).
As per claim 11, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according claim 1, wherein presence or absence of manager authority is set to the user(Figure 5, Brown discloses public(can be absence of manager authority) and private(can be presence of manager authority) access which can be set for each user)
As per claim 12, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, wherein the hardware processor permits the user having manager authority(Figure 5, Brown discloses “owner, which has manager authority) to transmit all pieces of the examination information(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual.”).
As per claim 13, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, comprising: a receiver that receives examination information transmitted from a user terminal used by a user, wherein the hardware processor permits reception of the examination information regarding the examination information(Col. 7, Line 2, Brown discloses: “medical data”[MEDICAL DATA CAN INCLUDE EXAMINATION INFORMAION]) in the transmission(Figure 6, #614, Brown discloses encryption of data, which can act as the permissive gate to receive examination information before transmission) .
As per claim 14, Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 13, wherein the reception unit receiver receives information indicating approval of the examination information and transmitted from the user having manager authority(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “ For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual[PERSON HAVING MANAGER AUTHORITY].”), and the control unit hardware processor permits transmission, to another user, of only the examination information for which the information indicating the approval is received(Figure 7, #706, Brown discloses storage controller accepts private encryption key and hence, transmission of specific data range information).
As per claim 19:
Claim 19 recites similar limitation as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
As per claim 20:
Claim 20 recites similar limitation as claim 2. See claim 2 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown(US11075754B2) in view of Chan(US10558643B2).
Claim 7
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 6, wherein the transmitter transmits, to the user, information indicating that the result report(Figure 5, Brown discloses: “test results”[TEST RESULTS CAN BE A REPORT FOR AN EXAMINATION]) has been read or downloaded by a terminal of the user.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
has been read or downloaded
Chan discloses:
has been read(Col. 2, Line 40, Chan discloses: “Followed content items can be accessibly displayed to the user with visual indications of the read[READ INDICATION] or unread status of those content items[CONTENT ITEMS CAN INCLUDE A RESULT REPORT].”) or downloaded(Col. 9, Line 42, Chan discloses: “Collaboration service 126 can query data sources such as metadata database 146 and server file journal 148 to determine that a user has saved[DOWNLOADED] the content item[CONTENT ITEM CAN BE A REPORT]…”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add information indicating whether a report has been read or downloaded, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to track and trace movement of a confidential document for record-keeping purposes, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 8
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 6, wherein the transmitter transmits, to the user, information indicating that the result report(Figure 5, Brown discloses: “test results”[TEST RESULTS CAN BE A REPORT FOR AN EXAMINATION]) has been registered, and transmits reminder information to the user when the result report is not read or not downloaded by the user until a predetermined period elapses after transmission of the information indicating the registration.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
has been registered, and transmits reminder information to the user when the result report is not read or not downloaded by the user until a predetermined period elapses after transmission of the information indicating the registration.
Chan discloses:
has been registered(Col. 3, Line 23, Chan discloses: “registered entities”), and transmits reminder information to the user when the result report is not read(Col. 2, Line 40, Chan discloses: “Followed content items can be accessibly displayed to the user with visual indications of the read or unread status[NOT READ] of those content items.”) or not downloaded by the user until a predetermined period elapses(Col. 14, Line 15, Chan discloses: “an unread status setting exceeding an unread expiration threshold or time interval…”) after transmission of the information indicating the registration(Col. 3, Line 23, Chan discloses: “registered entities”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add information on when a result report is not read or downloaded until a predetermined period elapses, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to track and trace movement of a confidential document for record-keeping purposes, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 9
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein the transmission unit transmitter transmits, to the user, information indicating a collection date of a specimen related to the examination(Figure 5, Brown discloses test results, which includes collection time of specimen) or a scheduled completion date of a report.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
or a scheduled completion date of a report.
Chan discloses:
completion date of a report(Col. 5, Line 33, Chan discloses: “Server file journal 148 can include the unique ID of the content item and a description of the change or access action along with a time stamp[TIMESTAMP CAN INDICATE COMPLETION DATE] or version number and any other relevant data.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add completion date of a report, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to track and trace movement of a confidential document for record-keeping purposes, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 10
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter transmits, to the user, information indicating a scheduled completion date of a report, the scheduled completion date being calculated from information indicating a collection date of a specimen related to the examination(Figure 5, Brown discloses test results, which includes collection time of specimen).
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
information indicating a scheduled completion date of a report
Chan discloses:
information indicating a scheduled completion date of a report(Col. 5, Line 33, Chan discloses: “Server file journal 148 can include the unique ID of the content item and a description of the change or access action along with a time stamp[TIMESTAMP CAN INDICATE COMPLETION DATE] or version number and any other relevant data.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add information indicating a scheduled completion date of a report, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to track and trace movement of a confidential document for record-keeping purposes, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 15
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, comprising: a receiver that receives announcement information transmitted from the user having manager authority(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “ For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual[PERSON HAVING MANAGER AUTHORITY].”), wherein the hardware processor permits transmission of the announcement information to another user.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
announcement information
Chan discloses:
announcement information(Col. 9, Line 61, Chan discloses: “Collaboration service 126 can provide a messaging platform whereby users can send and receive instant messages[MESSAGES CAN BE ANNOUNCEMENT INFORMATION], voice calls, emails, etc.…”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add announcement information, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to communicate between two users on a network to be able to provide updates on important information related to the reports, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 16
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, wherein the hardware processor permits transmission, to the user having manager authority(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “ For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual[PERSON HAVING MANAGER AUTHORITY].”), and reception of information regarding an account of another user.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
and reception of information regarding an account of another user
Chan discloses:
reception of information regarding an account of another user(Col. 8, Line 30, Chan discloses: “Sharing service 128 can record content item identifiers, user account identifiers given access to a content item, and access levels in access control list database 145.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add reception of information regarding an account of another user, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to attain information on other users in a network involving the distribution of potentially confidential information, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 18
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, wherein the hardware processor permits transmission, to the user, of information indicating that a result report for the examination(Figure 5, Brown discloses: “test results”[TEST RESULTS CAN BE A REPORT FOR AN EXAMINATION]) has been registered, and permits transmission, to the user having manager authority(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “ For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual[PERSON HAVING MANAGER AUTHORITY].”), of information indicating whether or not the transmitter has transmitted the result report to the user.
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
has been registered, of information indicating whether or not the transmitter has transmitted the result report to the user
Chan discloses:
has been registered(Col. 3, Line 23, Chan discloses: “registered entities”), and permits transmission, to the user having manager authority, of information indicating whether or not the transmitter has transmitted the result report to the user(Col. 9, Line 58, Chan discloses: “Various other content item events can trigger notifications, including deleting a content item, sharing[SHARING CAN INVOLVE TRANSMISSION] a content item[NOTIFICATION OF A SHARED FILE CAN ALSO INDICATE CONFIRMATION OF TRANSMITTED INFORMATION], etc.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add registered and information indicating whether or not a result report was transmitted to the user, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to officially register users in a network for distributing confidential information and allow for a confirmation that a file has been sent, but in this case for a notification system for content collaboration(Col. 1, Line 28, Chan discloses: “The higher volume of information and exchanges obscure important information and make it very difficult for users to track specific items and collaborations of interest in healthcare applications.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown(US11075754B2) in view of Motsinger(US7373524B2).
Claim 17
Brown discloses:
The examination information management system according to claim 11, wherein the hardware processor permits transmission of information regarding a time when another user has performed final login, to the user having manager authority(Col. 7, Line 28, Brown discloses: “ For private data, access must be granted by the owning individual[PERSON HAVING MANAGER AUTHORITY].”).
Brown does not explicitly disclose:
information regarding a time when another user has performed final login
Motsinger discloses:
information regarding a time when another user has performed final login(Figure 40A, Motsinger discloses a timestamp log of logins by different users that could be made available to anyone having manager authority)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the personal medical database access control system of Brown to add information regarding a time when another user has performed final login, as taught by Motsinger. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to provide login information of users on a network which involves the sharing or distribution of confidential information, but in this case for a system for monitoring user behavior for a server application(Col. 4, Line 6, Motsinger discloses: “Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that it can be difficult to anticipate, recognize, or prevent all types of web or server hacking in healthcare environments. Therefore, it is desirable to provide a system for monitoring communication between an application server and client application to alert operators to suspect activity.”).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
(Page 1) Regarding the assertion that the amendments preclude the claim from 101 rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please refer to full 101 analysis above for amended claims.
35 U.S.C. 102
(Page 2) Regarding the assertion that Brown does not disclose or suggest how access to various hierarchies is determined and managed
This is a newly amended feature interpreted under BRI and disclosed by Brown. See above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pait(US11195598B2): Pait discloses a system for providing aggregated patient data. Some disclosures of this invention as similar to this of this instant pending application. (Specification, pages 3 and 8)
Adams(US7587504B2): Adams discloses a method for interchanging documents between and sender and receiver. Some disclosures of this invention as similar to this of this instant pending application. (Specification, pages 17-19)
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights