DETAILED ACTION
Examiner's Note: The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 20 under the various obviousness rejections, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, therefore, the examiner as responded to such remarks in the office action below. See the office action below.
The examiner will address all other remarks that do not concern the prior art rejections, if any, in the office action below.
Applicant states on page[s] 10 of the remarks as filed: “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not articulated a reason why a person skilled in the art would combine the prior art references, does not have adequate evidentiary basis for that finding, and has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation finding that includes an express and rational connection with the evidence presented. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the Office has merely supplied a conclusory statement claiming that the combination of references would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that the Office has not met their burden in rejecting the claims under § 103 and requests that the § 103 be withdrawn.”
---In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant states on page[s] 10 of the remarks as filed: “Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that "[t]he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art." MPEP § 2143 (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that neither the references nor the rejections support such a conclusion. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that Davison in view of Dick fails to teach the claimed limitations.”
---In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant states on page[s] 10 and 11 of the remarks as filed: “Applicant's previously presented remarks regarding the references are incorporated by reference herein, as they remain applicable. Davison teaches a system for "inter-facility communication [that] include establishing a dedicated communication channel for a patient over which multiple healthcare entities exchange medical information." Davison at Abstract. The system of Davison teaches an "inter-facility communication platform [that] establishes a dedicated communication channel 140 for the given patient over which medical information associated with the given patient is exchanged between healthcare entities 130 that provide services to, or on behalf of, the given patient." Davison at [0038]. Thus, Davison teaches the sharing of information between facilities for a patient using a dedicated communication channel. Davison teaches the transmission of information between healthcare entities specifically related to a patient. Thus, all transmissions of Davison are related to a specific patient and the information that is exchanged is related to the patient. This is specifically distinguishable from a "a request for access to a resource of at least a second of the at least two healthcare systems." Claim 1 (as previously presented). As stated in the specification, "the resource may be a healthcare provider, a bed, a healthcare support staff, a procedure, a piece of healthcare equipment, a particularly facility, and/or the like." Specification at [0047]. The described system, and as claimed, is much broader than simply transmission of information related to a specific patient. Transmission of information related to a specific patient is a much simpler issue to accommodate than receiving requests for resources and responding to those requests, as provided in the present application. For example, the system Davison would not provide a technique for healthcare facilities to communicate if the healthcare facilities wanted access to a resource that is not related to a specific patient.”
---In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that applicant’s recited “resource,” is too board in scope to not embody the prior art teachings of “patient data,” as disclosed and implemented in the operations of prior arts Davison and Dick. Applicant’s recited “resource” without reading applicant’s specification [i.e….paragraph: 0047] into the claims could be accessing any type of data under the sun.
Applicant states on page[s] 11 and 12 of the remarks as filed: “Additionally, the teachings of Davison are readily distinguishable from the claimed limitations in which a "healthcare system exchange" is utilized for communication between healthcare systems. Claim 1 (as previously presented). As per the claimed limitations, requests for access to a resource are received at the healthcare system exchange. The healthcare system exchange then transmits the request, after ensuring the request conforms with communication rules, to the second healthcare system. See Claim 1 (as previously presented). Accordingly, a dedicated communication channel for a particular patient does not have to be created, as taught in Davison. Rather, the healthcare system exchange performs the communications that occur between the healthcare systems and ensures that such communications conform to the "set of communication rules" of the claimed limitations. Claim 1 (as previously presented). In other words, Davison does not teach "providing a healthcare system exchange, wherein the healthcare system exchange facilitates communicative connection of at least two healthcare systems, wherein each of the at least two healthcare systems connect to the healthcare system exchange and provide communications to the healthcare system exchange to be transmitted to another of the at least two healthcare systems and wherein the healthcare system exchange ensures security and privacy of communications transmitted between healthcare systems." Claim 1 (as currently amended). Davison only teaches a dedicated communication channel creation for a particular patient, not a healthcare system exchange, as per the claimed limitations.”
---In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to the prior art of Davison. Specifically, at paragraph: 0004, lines 1 – 18, In one aspect, a disclosed system is for exchanging medical information between healthcare entities. The system includes an inter-facility communication platform, a plurality of client computing devices, each configured to be operated by a user at a respective one of three or more healthcare entities that provide services to a given patient, a data store, and a rules repository. The data store includes an aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient, including demographic data for the given patient, entity-owned data associated with the given patient, and data representing information sharing requests exchanged between the three or more entities on behalf of the given patient.
Then further of paragraph: 0004, lines 28 – 40 of Davison, The communication platform is configured to establish a dedicated communication channel over which the three or more entities exchange medical information associated with the given patient, to detect a first request from a first one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at a first one of the three or more healthcare entities to share information associated with the given patient with one or more users at a second one of the three of more healthcare entities over the dedicated communication channel, and in response to detecting the first request, to share a first portion of the aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient with a second one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at the second healthcare entity. The first portion of the aggregate healthcare record shared is dependent on the medical information sharing rules.
The examiner also points out that operation of Davison, is one of physical structure where client devices are connected to the inter-facility communication platform [Davison, Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0004, lines 1 – 18] by various types of wired and wireless communication protocols [Davison, paragraph: 0060].
Based on the findings as articulated above by the office, applicant’s claimed invention is an obvious variation of the combined prior art teachings of Davison in view of Dick.
Response to Amendment
Status of the instant application:
Claim[s] 1 – 20 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding claims under the various obviousness rejections, applicant claim amendments are not persuasive, therefore, are addressed in the office action below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9, 10, 11 – 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison et al. [US PGPUB # 2020/0350082] in view of Dick et al. [US PGPUB # 2002/0116227]
As per claim 1. Davison does teach a method [Davison, paragraph: 0005, lines 1 – 7, In another aspect, a disclosed method is for exchanging medical information between healthcare entities. The method includes establishing a dedicated communication channel associated with a given patient over which three or more healthcare entities that provide services to the given patient exchange medical information associated with the given patient], the method comprising:
providing a healthcare system exchange, wherein the healthcare system exchange facilitates communicative connection of at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0004, lines 1 – 7, In one aspect, a disclosed system is for exchanging medical information between healthcare entities. The system includes an inter-facility communication platform, a plurality of client computing devices, each configured to be operated by a user at a respective one of three or more healthcare entities that provide services to a given patient, a data store, and a rules repository.], wherein each of the at least two healthcare systems connect to the healthcare system exchange and provide communications to the healthcare system exchange to be transmitted to another of the at least two healthcare systems and wherein the healthcare system exchange ensures security and privacy of communications transmitted between healthcare systems by [paragraph: 0004, lines 1 – 18, In one aspect, a disclosed system is for exchanging medical information between healthcare entities. The system includes an inter-facility communication platform, a plurality of client computing devices, each configured to be operated by a user at a respective one of three or more healthcare entities that provide services to a given patient, a data store, and a rules repository. The data store includes an aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient, including demographic data for the given patient, entity-owned data associated with the given patient, and data representing information sharing requests exchanged between the three or more entities on behalf of the given patient.
Then further of paragraph: 0004, lines 28 – 40 of Davison, The communication platform is configured to establish a dedicated communication channel over which the three or more entities exchange medical information associated with the given patient, to detect a first request from a first one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at a first one of the three or more healthcare entities to share information associated with the given patient with one or more users at a second one of the three of more healthcare entities over the dedicated communication channel, and in response to detecting the first request, to share a first portion of the aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient with a second one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at the second healthcare entity. The first portion of the aggregate healthcare record shared is dependent on the medical information sharing rules.]:
receiving, at the healthcare system exchange, and storing, within a database of the healthcare system exchange, a plurality of sets of communication rules corresponding to communications occurring between the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0035, In various embodiments, medical information sharing rules [i.e. applicant’s…plurality of sets of communication rules] repository 105 may reside on inter-facility communication platform 110 hardware or may be remote storage, such as cloud-based storage. Similarly, medical platform data store 120 may reside on inter-facility communication platform 110 hardware or may be remote storage, such as cloud-based storage, in different embodiments.], the each of sets of communication rules defining information that can be shared between sets of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0011, In any of the disclosed embodiments, to share the first portion of the aggregate healthcare record with the second client computing device at the second healthcare entity, the communication platform may be configured to define an entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the second entity including the shared information defined by the medical information sharing rules [i.e. applicant’s each of sets of communication rules defining] and not including linked information added or modified by a healthcare entity other than the second healthcare entity or entity-specific information owned by a healthcare entity other than the second healthcare entity, and to share the second portion of the aggregate healthcare record with the third client computing device at the third healthcare entity, the communication platform may be configured to define an entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the third entity including the shared information defined by the medical information sharing rules [i.e. applicant’s each of sets of communication rules defining] and not including linked information added or modified by a healthcare entity other than the third healthcare entity or entity-specific information owned by a healthcare entity other than the third healthcare entity.];
receiving, at the healthcare system exchange from a first of the at least two healthcare systems, a communication to be transmitted to at least a second of the at least two healthcare system, the communication comprising a request for access to a resource of at least a second of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0004, lines 27 – 36, The communication platform is configured to establish a dedicated communication channel over which the three or more entities exchange medical information associated with the given patient, to detect a first request from a first one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at a first one of the three or more healthcare entities to share information associated with the given patient with one or more users at a second one of the three of more healthcare entities over the dedicated communication channel], wherein the resource comprises an object or person within the at least a second of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0029, These systems and methods may be applied to exchange medical information between any number of healthcare entities [i.e. applicant’s… within the at least second of the at least two healthcare systems] that are added to a dedicated communication for a given patient.
Further of Davison, at paragraph: 0011, In any of the disclosed embodiments, to share the first portion of the aggregate healthcare record [i.e. applicant’s….resource comprises an object or person…] with the second client computing device at the second healthcare entity.
Where further of Davison, at paragraph: 0004, lines 1 – 10, The data store includes an aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient, including demographic data for the given patient, entity-owned data associated with the given patient, and data representing information sharing requests exchanged between the three or more entities on behalf of the given patient. ]; and
transmitting, from the healthcare system exchange to the at least a second of the at least two healthcare systems, the request, wherein the transmitting comprises ensuring, by the healthcare system exchange, the request conforms with the set of communication rules [Davison, paragraph: 0004, lines 36 – 40, and in response to detecting the first request, to share a first portion of the aggregate healthcare record associated with the given patient with a second one of the plurality of client computing devices operated by a user at the second healthcare entity]…………..
Davison does not clearly teach the claim limitation of: “…..by augmenting the request to remove information within the request based upon the information that can be shared in conformance with the set of communication rules.”
However, Dick does teach the claim limitation of: “by augmenting the request to remove information within the request based upon the information that can be shared in conformance with the set of communication rules [Dick, paragraph: 0050, In an alternative embodiment, the CPR from the healthcare facility is sent from the M3 module on the healthcare facility CIS to a fourth software module (M4) 75 on the facilitator's server. The M4 receives the report and may augment the information being transmitted. For example, the M4 may normalize the information to a convenient format for transmission or reception or may remove or add information from the CPR as necessary or desired.].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Davison and Dick in order for the inter-facility communication platform to determine whether a request to share patient data with a requesting party based on sharing rules of Davison as modified to include encrypting of the data as it is shared between the inter-facility communication platform and the requesting parties. This would allow for the interfacility communication platform to prevent compromising of the patient data by replacing the patient’s data with encrypted text while in transit to the intended recipient. See paragraph: 0011 of Dick.
As per claim 2. Davison does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a graphical user interface associated with the healthcare system exchange [Davison, Figure # 11, and paragraph: 0135, lines 32 – 36, In some embodiments, one of peripheral adapters 1106 may include a video camera interface or driver, or a driver for another type of input/output device, including a driver for a voice recorder or one or more GUI drivers for capturing inputs from users.].
As per claim 3. Davison does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the graphical user interface displays at least one user input field for generating the request for access [Davison, Figure # 11, and paragraph: 0135, lines 32 – 36, In some embodiments, one of peripheral adapters 1106 may include a video camera interface or driver, or a driver for another type of input/output device, including a driver for a voice recorder or one or more GUI drivers for capturing inputs from users.].
As per claim 4. Davison does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the graphical user interface is provided within a system of at least one of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, Figure # 11, and paragraph: 0135, lines 32 – 36, In some embodiments, one of peripheral adapters 1106 may include a video camera interface or driver, or a driver for another type of input/output device, including a driver for a voice recorder or one or more GUI drivers for capturing inputs from users.] and is updated and managed based upon instructions provided by the healthcare system exchange [Davison, paragraph: 0013, In any of the disclosed embodiments, the shared information in the aggregate healthcare record may include demographic data associated with the given user, and the communication platform may be further configured to automatically synchronize the demographic data in the aggregate healthcare record across all entity-specific copies of the aggregate healthcare record responsive to detecting that a user at a given one of the three or more healthcare entities has added or modified demographic data in the entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the given healthcare entity.].
As per claim 5. Davison does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the at least two healthcare systems comprise non-affiliated healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0137, lines 25 – 38, In some embodiments, platform applications 1112 may include a client application configured to operate on a client computing device of a user at a healthcare entity and to interact with an inter-facility communication platform to exchange medical information with client computing devices of users at other healthcare entities. In some embodiments, a user at a healthcare entity may log into, and operate, a platform application 1112 as a healthcare provider, such as a first responder, an emergency medical technician EMT, a doctor, a nurse, or a lab technician, for example, who provides healthcare services to a given patient or as an administrator authorized to add or modify configuration information, such as platform configuration data 1118 and/or medical information sharing rules 1115.].
As per claim 6. Davison does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising
receiving, at the healthcare system exchange from the at least a second of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0011, lines 1 – 7, In any of the disclosed embodiments, to share the first portion of the aggregate healthcare record with the second client computing device at the second healthcare entity, the communication platform may be configured to define an entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the second entity including the shared information defined by the medical information sharing rules], a status update related to the request [Davison, paragraph: 0013, In any of the disclosed embodiments, the shared information in the aggregate healthcare record may include demographic data associated with the given user, and the communication platform may be further configured to automatically synchronize the demographic data in the aggregate healthcare record across all entity-specific copies of the aggregate healthcare record responsive to detecting that a user at a given one of the three or more healthcare entities has added or modified demographic data in the entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the given healthcare entity.]; and
transmitting, from the healthcare system exchange to the first of the at least two healthcare systems, the status, wherein the transmitting comprises ensuring the status conforms with the set of communication rules [Davison, paragraph: 0013, In any of the disclosed embodiments, the shared information in the aggregate healthcare record may include demographic data associated with the given user, and the communication platform may be further configured to automatically synchronize the demographic data in the aggregate healthcare record across all entity-specific copies of the aggregate healthcare record responsive to detecting that a user at a given one of the three or more healthcare entities has added or modified demographic data in the entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the given healthcare entity ].
As per claim 9. Davison does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the request is generated automatically based upon a predicted future resource need of the at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0028, As noted above, medical informatics solutions include providing methods, resources, and devices to facilitate the care of patients by doctors and nurses whose needs include the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information associated with their patients.].
As per claim 10. Davison does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the resource comprises at least one of:
a bed, a healthcare provider [Davison, paragraph: 0034, In various embodiments, a user at a healthcare entity may log into an application operating on a client computing device 130 and interacting with inter-facility communication platform 110 as a healthcare provider, such as a first responder, an emergency medical technician (EMT), a doctor, a nurse, or a lab technician, for example, who provides healthcare services to a given patient, or as an administrator authorized to add or modify configuration information, such as medical information sharing rules stored in medical information storing rules repository 105.], a healthcare support staff [Davison, paragraph: 0034, doctor or nurse], a procedure [Davison, paragraph: 0064, recommendations for treatment at hospital 1(310)], and a piece of healthcare equipment.
As per system claim 11 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited: “database comprises a set of communication rules,” “processor,” “memory device - instructions,” is taught by the prior art of: Davison at paragraph: 0133.
As per system claim 12 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 13 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 14 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 15 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 16 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 19 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
As per system claim 20 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited: “A product,” “computer-readable storage device that stores executable code,” “processor,” is taught by the prior art of Davison at paragraph: 0006, lines 1 – 14.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison et al. [US PGPUB # 2020/0350082] in view of Dick et al. [US PGPUB # 2002/0116227] as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further in view of Antony et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0194997]
As per claim 7. Davison and Dick do teach what is taught in the rejection of claim 6 above.
While Davison does teach the claim limitation of: “…and
wherein the at least one graphical element is iteratively updated based upon changes to the status as provided by the healthcare system exchange [Davison, paragraph: 0013, In any of the disclosed embodiments, the shared information in the aggregate healthcare record may include demographic data associated with the given user, and the communication platform may be further configured to automatically synchronize the demographic data in the aggregate healthcare record across all entity-specific copies of the aggregate healthcare record responsive to detecting that a user at a given one of the three or more healthcare entities has added or modified demographic data in the entity-specific copy of the aggregate healthcare record for the given healthcare entity].”
Davison and Dick do not clearly teach the method of claim 6, wherein the status is displayed as at least one graphical element within a graphical user interface associated with the healthcare system exchange…………
However, Antony does teach the method of claim 6, wherein the status is displayed as at least one graphical element within a graphical user interface associated with the healthcare system exchange [Figure # 3, and paragraph: 0050, lines 15 – 22, Based on the query or in response to a satisfied notification parameter provided by the user, output engine 114 returns a response for display on GUI 1700 in an appropriate surface field, such as a graphic or table for numerical data. In this way, numerical data may be rendered in GUI 1700 as interactive tables, graphical data as, alert or notification data as pop-ups or prompt icons updating the tables and charts]………..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Davison as modified and Antony in order for the inter-facility communication platform to determine whether a request to share patient data with a requesting party based on sharing rules of Davison as modified to include real – time determination using the sharing rules of Antony. This would allow for the inter-facility platform make a determination of sharing the requested patient data based on update sharing rules. See paragraph: 0002 of Antony.
As per system claim 17 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison et al. [US PGPUB # 2020/0350082] in view of Dick et al. [US PGPUB # 2002/0116227] as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further in view of Khandelwal [US PGPUB # 2016/0019402]
As per claim 8. Davison and Dick do teach what is taught in the rejection of claim 6 above.
While Davison does teach the claim limitations of: “the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving a set of communication rules comprises receiving a plurality of sets of communication rules [Davison, Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0035, In various embodiments, medical information sharing rules repository 105 may reside on inter-facility communication platform 110 hardware or may be remote storage, such as cloud-based storage. Similarly, medical platform data store 120 may reside on inter-facility communication platform 110 hardware or may be remote storage, such as cloud-based storage, in different embodiments];
wherein each of plurality of sets of communication rules correspond to different groups of healthcare systems, wherein each of the different groups comprise at least two healthcare systems [Davison, paragraph: 0005, lines 1 – 7, In another aspect, a disclosed method is for exchanging medical information between healthcare entities. The method includes establishing a dedicated communication channel associated with a given patient over which three or more healthcare entities that provide services to the given patient exchange medical information associated with the given patient]……..”
Davison and Dick do not clearly teach the claim limitation of: “…and
wherein the healthcare system exchange varies a communication protocol between different of the different groups of healthcare systems to ensure conformance to the set of communication rules corresponding to a group of healthcare systems.”
However, Khandelwal does teach the claim limitation of: “…and
wherein the healthcare system exchange varies a communication protocol between different of the different groups of healthcare systems to ensure conformance to the set of communication rules corresponding to a group of healthcare systems [paragraph: 0034, lines 1 – 5, In another embodiment, the platform can enable a message feed in which all communications across different communication channels on the platform are brought together. A message feed can different for different users, and groups/teams on the platform.].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Davison as modified and Khandelwal in order for the inter-facility communication platform to determine whether a request to share patient data with a requesting party based on sharing rules of Davison as modified to include real – time determination using the sharing rules of Khandelwal. This would allow for the inter-facility platform make a determination of sharing the requested patient data based on update sharing rules. See paragraph: 0054 of Khandelwal.
As per system claim 18 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571 – 270 - 1050. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights