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 .
Examiner Note:
Examiner suggest scheduling interview to further advance prosecution, see Examiner Note at the end of independent claim 1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-7 and 10-20 have been amended. No Claims been canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 06/30/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “receive, from multiple healthcare provider (HP) platforms or a user application, a set of user data items including an NFT identity (NFT ID) associated with a user; verify each user data item of the set of user data items; generate a set of hashes, wherein each hash in the set of hashes corresponds to a verified user data item in the set of user data items; mint an EHR NFT that includes each hash in the set of hashes and metadata identifying the HP platforms that provided respective user data items; update one or more smart contracts to include the EHR NFT; and enable sharing of the EHR NFT among multiple HP platforms while maintaining data tracking using a consortium blockchain comprising individual private blockchains maintained by individual HP platforms, wherein: a first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform, a second private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a second HP platform, the first and second private blockchains include the NFT ID in respective blocks, each HP platform manages its own node within the consortium blockchain such that data within each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium as defined by the one or more smart contracts, the one or more smart contracts control access permissions between the HP platforms and track transactions and changes to EHR data, and”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 that the cited references fail to teach receive, from multiple healthcare provider (HP) platforms or a user application, a set of user data items including an NFT identity (NFT ID) associated with a user; verify each user data item of the set of user data items; generate a set of hashes, wherein each hash in the set of hashes corresponds to a verified user data item in the set of user data items; mint an EHR NFT that includes each hash in the set of hashes and metadata identifying the HP platforms that provided respective user data items; update one or more smart contracts to include the EHR NFT; and enable sharing of the EHR NFT among multiple HP platforms while maintaining data tracking using a consortium blockchain comprising individual private blockchains maintained by individual HP platforms, wherein: a first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform, a second private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a second HP platform, the first and second private blockchains include the NFT ID in respective blocks, each HP platform manages its own node within the consortium blockchain such that data within each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium as defined by the one or more smart contracts, the one or more smart contracts control access permissions between the HP platforms and track transactions and changes to EHR data, and. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Bradley teaches on Par. (0015-0017) a receiving of from recorded medical data from a healthcare provider application. DeRosa-Grund then discloses a verification of each user data on Par. (0161-0164 and 0131) that verifies user’s identity and health data from set of health data and results. DeRosa-Grund then teaches on Par. (0166-0168) a creating of set of hashes with NFT and health records, and hashes that correlate to each user ID and health data. DeRosa-Grund then teaches on Par. (0167-0169) a minting of the IDNFT with metadata such as code, information block data etc. to health insurance company. DeRosa-Grund teaches on Par. (0174-0175) an updating of smart contracts. Gardina then teaches on Par. (0008-0010) sharing of clinical outcomes with plurality of medical providers using blockchain that store assessments in database and have results to be accessed and on Par. (0089) that describe consortium blockchain used by clinical experts and medical test facilitators. Gardina teaches on Par., (0074, 0106) a HER NFT with multiple HP platforms with NFT and medical tracked in blockchain on private blockchain that store patient data. Gardina teaches on Par.(0127) a first and second private blockchain that stores NFT ID on blocks. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 06/30/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “the consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID in the first and second private blockchains as a super ID of the user, rather than requiring individual user permission for each access..”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293) and DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725) further in view Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Cordonnier et al. (U.S No. 11443838) in conjunction Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293) and DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725) further in view Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 8-11, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-20 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Bradley-DeRosa-Grund-Gardina- Cordonnier teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1 and 11 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293 (Retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Bradley”) and DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725, hereinafter referred to as “DeRosa-Grund”) and Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566, hereinafter referred to as “Gardina”) further in view Cordonnier et al. (U.S No. 11443838, hereinafter referred to as “Cordonnier”)
In regards to Claim 1, Bradley teaches an apparatus for providing an electronic health record (EHR) non-fungible token (NFT) service, the apparatus comprising: (Par. (0015-0017); medical imaging device used for creating NFT and upload user medical records)
memory circuitry; and (Par. (0017); memory)
processor circuitry connected to the memory circuitry, (Par. (0017); processor and memory)
wherein the processor circuitry is to: (Par. (0017); processor)
receive, from one or more healthcare provider (HP) platforms or a user application, a set of user data items including an NFT identity (NFT ID) associated with a user; (Par. (0015-0017); receiving the recorded medical data from user software application), (Par. (0056-0058); user application corresponding to software application of computing device that receives and communicates medical imagery data of user), (Par. (0015-0017 and 0027-0029); medical data received corresponds to NFT and unique identification))
Bradley does not explicitly teach verify each user data item of the set of user data items; generate a set of hashes, wherein each hash in the set of hashes corresponds to a verified user data item in the set of user data items; mint an EHR NFT that includes each hash in the set of hashes and metadata identifying the HP platforms that provided respective user data items; and update one or more smart contracts to include the EHR NFT; and enable sharing of the EHR NFT among multiple HP platforms while maintaining data tracking using a consortium blockchain comprising individual private blockchains maintained by individual HP platforms, wherein: a first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform, a second private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a second HP platform, the first and second private blockchains include the NFT ID in respective blocks, each HP platform manages its own node within the consortium blockchain such that data within each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium as defined by the one or more smart contracts, the one or more smart contracts control access permissions between the HP platforms and track transactions and changes to EHR data, and the consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID in the first and second private blockchains as a super ID of the user rather than requiring individual user permission for each access.
Wherein DeRosa-Grund teaches verify each user data item of the set of user data items; (Par. (0129-0131); ID verification process and validates identity of the user upon receiving test results (medical statuses)), (Par. (0153-0154); transaction data used in verifying health data of users), (Par. (0161-0164); verify each user data item (in order to verify a user’s identity [..] verify that the EHR [..] health data)), (Par. (0131); validating medical data/results))
generate a set of hashes, (Par. (0166-0168); creates set of hashes (hash of dataset corresponding to dataset and NFT of health records)
wherein each hash in the set of hashes corresponds to a verified user data item in the set of user data items; (Par. (0167-0169); IDNFT with hash of collected dataset associated with user ID and health data is validated) (Par. (0013); each hash [..]corresponds to a verified user data item (hash of portion of electronic health data)), (Par. (0165-0167); after verifiable health data is determined a hash is created corresponding to electronic health data and recorded as block in blockchain))
mint an EHR NFT that includes each hash in the set of hashes and metadata identifying the HP platforms that provided respective user data items; and (Par. (0167-0169); IDNFT with hash of collected dataset is validated and minted and posted on notary blockchain upon validation; metadata such as identifying information, code, identifier, block data from health provider to insurance company)
update one or more smart contracts to include the EHR NFT; and (Par. (0174-0175); updated health records with EHR NFT corresponding to smart contract), (Par. (0096-0097); generates a new smart contract that reflects parameters of identifier and block), (Par. (0014); EHR NFT stored in block of blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and electronic health records, with the motivation of securely protecting the transfer of medical records between patients and preventing inefficiency and costs by using a hash verification and blockchain that updates the smart contract and mints EHR NFT’s for nodes in the system to verify individual and promote high credibility in the system. (DeRosa-Grund Par. (0005-0007))
Bradley and DeRosa-Grund do not explicitly enable sharing of the EHR NFT among multiple HP platforms while maintaining data tracking using a consortium blockchain comprising individual private blockchains maintained by individual HP platforms, wherein: a first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform, a second private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a second HP platform, the first and second private blockchains include the NFT ID in respective blocks, each HP platform manages its own node within the consortium blockchain such that data within each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium as defined by the one or more smart contracts, the one or more smart contracts control access permissions between the HP platforms and track transactions and changes to EHR data, and the consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID in the first and second private blockchains as a super ID of the user rather than requiring individual user permission for each access.
Wherein Gardina teaches enable sharing of the EHR NFT among multiple HP platforms while maintaining data tracking using a consortium blockchain comprising individual private blockchains maintained by individual HP platforms, (Par. (0008-0010); sharing of clinical outcomes with plurality of medical providers using blockchain that store assessments in database and have results to be accessed), (Par. (0089); consortium blockchain used by clinical experts and medical test facilitators) , (Par. (0074, 0106); HER NFT among multiple HP platforms (NFT with medical data and outcomes shared and tracked in blockchain) using consortium blockchain comprising private blockchains (private blockchains used with NFT to store patient data))
wherein: a first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform, (Par. (0127); multiple private blockchains 206a-d) (Figure 2 label 206a, 222a and 234a; first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform (health providers and clinical experts share information to first private blockchain 206a))
a second private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a second HP platform, (Par. (0127); multiple private blockchains 206a-d) (Figure 2 label 206b, 222b and 234b; first private blockchain is maintained for and corresponds to a first HP platform (health providers and clinical experts share information to first private blockchain 206a))
the first and second private blockchains include the NFT ID in respective blocks, (Par. (0127); first and second private blockchains (multiple private blockchains)), (Par. (0106, 0112-0114); each blockchain record with NFT and NFT ID that is used to retrieve NFT))
each HP platform manages its own node within the consortium blockchain such that data within each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium as defined by the one or more smart contracts, (Figure 2 labels 206a-c, 233a-c, 234a-c and 222a-c; each HP platform manages its own node (provider 232 and clinical experts manages individual nodes 234 with consortium blockchain (consensus blockchain)), (Par. (0127); each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium (private blockchains 206a-e)) (Figure 2 labels 206a-e, 233a-c, 234a-c and 222a-c ; each HP platform's private blockchain is accessible, shared, and distributed by different HP platforms within the consortium (each clinical expert and providers share and receive data from private blockchains 206a-e)), (Par. (0119-0120); as defined by the one or more smart contracts (smart contract governing access between medical providers and users with NFT transactions in blockchain)), (Par.0103] In some implementations, consumers (for example, individuals 234a-234c and/or medical providers 232a-232c, with the consent of their respective patients), upload clinical outcome data regarding the clinical or analytical validity and clinical utility of individual genomic tests to the clinical outcome DB 206e. In some implementations, as described in more detail below, the uploaded clinical outcome data is associated with an NFT. (Par. 0116 ) The NFT 614 can be subsequently traded (sold) to and between accounts corresponding to various entities 612 that would like access to the corresponding data. Trading of the NFT 614 can be performed using one or more smart contracts that specify gas fees and otherwise regulate allowed trades. Accordingly, medical data can be provided efficiently to those entities willing to pay the highest compensation for the NFT 614 corresponding to the medical data.)
the one or more smart contracts control access permissions between the HP platforms and track transactions and changes to EHR data, and (Par. (0119-0120); smart contract governing access between medical providers and users with NFT transactions in blockchain)), (Par. (0073-0076) and track transaction and changes to EHR data (medical provider and patient with consent access to transactions with result of tests), (Par. (0099-0102); track transactions and changes (new statuses/ updates corresponding to transactions that are stored and tracked between medical providers and individuals)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley and DeRosa-Grund to incorporate the teaching of Gardina to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of medical data shared within a blockchain network, with the motivation of implementing a consortium blockchain to share medical data within a trusted group of medical providers without concerns of illegitimate access of data. (Gardina Par. (0003 and 0020)
Bradley, DeRosa-Grund and Gardina do not explicitly teach the consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID in the first and second private blockchains as a super ID of the user, rather than requiring individual user permission for each access.
Wherein Cordonnier teaches the consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID in the first and second private blockchains as a super ID of the user, rather than requiring individual user permission for each access. (Col. 6 lines 17-40); consortium blockchain enables the HP platforms to share data amongst themselves using the NFT ID (blockchain and sharing of patient health records using NFT between provider and patient)), (Col. 25 lines 20-60); in the first and second private blockchains (multiple private blockchains corresponding to NFT), (Col. 31 lines 21-60); as a super ID of the user, rather than requiring individual user permission for each access. (NFT with key used to gain access to patient healthcare data)), (Examiner Note: In the instant application the specification defines “super ID” as a multipurpose ID. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonable interpreted that a key or form of identification used for more than one instance meets the claimed limitation.) (Examiner Note: Examiner suggest to further explain a “super ID” is defined. Examiner suggests if “super ID” is a constant or shared ID and bypasses the access controls or permission Examiner suggest this detail could advance prosecution, Examiner suggest scheduling an interview as the phrase logy or this newly added limitation may need to be revised. Examiner thanks the applicant for their time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund and Gardina to incorporate the teaching of Cordonnier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of medical data shared within a blockchain network, with the motivation of verifying ownerships of data and ensuring no replicas in blockchain. (Cordonnier Col. 1 lines 20-40))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the apparatus of claim 1, Bradley further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor circuitry is to: (Par. (0017); processor)
send the minted EHR NFT to the HP platform or the user application. (Par. (0063-0066); minting of NFT is loaded and transferred to third party that is then searched for medical conditions)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the apparatus of claim 1, DeRosa-Grund further teaches generate a block for inclusion in a blockchain, (Par. (0050-0052); new block added to notary blockchain)
wherein the block includes the minted EHR NFT or the set of hashes; and (Par. (0167-0169); hash and EHR created with single transaction or block)
add the generated block to the blockchain after verification of the generated block. (Par. (0167-0169); block with EHR NFT with hash of collected dataset is validated and minted and posted on notary blockchain upon validation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the apparatus of claim 1, DeRosa-Grund further teaches wherein the block includes a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, and (Par. (0042); hash of previous block corresponding to transaction)
the block does not include the set of user data items. (Figure 5 label 506; block with transaction data), (Par. (0043); block with label 508 includes data on receiving/buyer identifier and product descriptions not including medical records data of user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the apparatus of claim 1, DeRosa-Grund further teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to: cause storage of the set of user data items in a private database separate from the blockchain. (Par. (0051); off chain server based database corresponding to MIDC storing user data and accounts)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the apparatus of claim 1, DeRosa-Grund further teaches wherein the NFT ID is generated by an NFT ID service that is separate from the EHR NFT service (Par. (0162-0167; EHR with health records in registration process is service that generates the IDNFT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 11, claim 11 recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, DeRosa-Grund further teaches generate a block for inclusion in a blockchain, (Par. (0050-0052); new block added to notary blockchain)
wherein the block includes the minted EHR NFT or an individual hash in the set of hashes; and (Par. (0167-0169); hash and EHR created with single transaction or block)
add the generated block to the blockchain after verification of the generated block. (Par. (0167-0169); block with EHR NFT with hash of collected dataset is validated and minted and posted on notary blockchain upon validation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, DeRosa-Grund further teaches wherein the block includes a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, and (Par. (0042); hash of previous block corresponding to transaction)
the block does not include the set of user data items. (Figure 5 label 506; block with transaction data), (Par. (0043); block with label 508 includes data on receiving/buyer identifier and product descriptions not including medical records data of user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, DeRosa-Grund further teaches cause storage of the set of user data items in a private database separate from the blockchain. (Par. (0051); off chain server based database corresponding to MIDC storing user data and accounts)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, Gardina and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, Bradley further teaches the at least one NTCRM of claim 11, wherein the set of user data items includes one or more of: EHR data associated with the user, an NFT identity (ID) associated with the user, personal information, confidential information, sensitive information, one or more identity documents, authentication or authorization credentials, biometric data, knowledge-based authentication (KBA) data, social media profile data, or user system data of a user system used to provide the set of user data items to the EHR NFT service. (Par. (0015-0022); set of the user data items includes confidential information, sensitive information (medical data records with imaging data of CAT scan , MRI etc.)
In regards to Claim 20, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, Bradley further teaches the at least one NTCRM of claim 11, wherein the one or more data sources include one or more of: one or more HP platforms, a user system operated by the user, the EHR NFT service, one or more governmental databases, or one or more non-governmental organization databases. (Par. (0025-0027); user system operated by user (personal communication device of user)
Claims 6 and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293 (Retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Bradley”), DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725, hereinafter referred to as “DeRosa-Grund”), Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566, hereinafter referred to as “Gardina”) and Cordonnier et al. (U.S No. 11443838, hereinafter referred to as “Cordonnier”) further in view of Tran et al. (U.S No. 12182204, hereinafter referred to as “Tran”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier teach the NTCRM of claim 11, DeRosa-Grund further teaches wherein the EHR updates include changes to existing EHR data associated with the user, newly generated EHR data associated with the user, or anomalous transactions between two or more HPs; and (Par. (0013-0017); updated electronic health data and newly generated EHR NFT with token identifier corresponding to user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley and Gardina to incorporate the teaching of DeRosa-Grund to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and electronic health records, with the motivation of securely protecting the transfer of medical records between patients and preventing inefficiency and costs by using a hash verification and blockchain that updates the smart contract and mints EHR NFT’s for nodes in the system to verify individual and promote high credibility in the system. (DeRosa-Grund Par. (0005-0007))
Bradley, DeRosa-Grund and Gardina, Cordonnier do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more smart contracts include conditions, parameters, or criteria for detecting EHR updates, and the processor circuitry is to: detect the EHR updates based on the conditions, parameters, or criteria in the one or more smart contracts, send a notification to one or more HP platforms defined in the one or more smart contracts, wherein the notification indicates the detected EHR updates.
Wherein Tran teaches wherein the one or more smart contract include conditions, parameters, or criteria for detecting EHR updates, and the processor circuitry is to: (Col. 50 lines 5-35; smart contract implements health plan by determining updated health plan based on risk score criteria)
detect the EHR updates based on the conditions, parameters, or criteria in the one or more smart contract, (Col. 50 lines 5-35; determining updated health plan based on risk score associated with smart contract)
send a notification to one or more HP platforms defined in the one or more smart contract, wherein the notification indicates the detected EHR updates. (Col. 50 lines 50-67 and Col. 51 lines 1-15; PHR provider when new updates to patient PHT is sent flags to changes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of Tran to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and electronic health records, with the motivation of implementing parameters and criteria associated with the electronic health records and updates to enhance security protection of sensitive data and safeguard with updates the records of patients and communicate with alerts to healthcare providers to assure stability in health. (Tran Col. 10 lines 5-35)
In regards to Claim 15, claim 15 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 6 and the teachings of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier and Tran address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 6 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293 (Retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Bradley”), DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725, hereinafter referred to as “DeRosa-Grund”) Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566, hereinafter referred to as “Gardina”) Cordonnier et al. (U.S No. 11443838, hereinafter referred to as “Cordonnier”) and Tran et al. (U.S No. 12182204, hereinafter referred to as “Tran”) further in view of Abdulla et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210398687, hereinafter referred to as “Abdulla”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach receive one or more EHR policies from one or more HPs; generate a set of real-time codes from the EHR policies; and generate the conditions, parameters, or criteria in the one or more smart contracts based on the set of real-time codes.
Wherein Tran teaches receive one or more EHR policies from one or more HPs; (Col. 4 lines 60-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-25; transferring policy coverage with electronic medical records to destination)
generate a set of real-time codes from the EHR policies; and (Col. 4 lines 60-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-25; code to determine type and policy coverage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, and Cordonnier to incorporate the teaching of Tran to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and electronic health records, with the motivation of implementing parameters and criteria associated with the electronic health records and updates to enhance security protection of sensitive data and safeguard with updates the records of patients and communicate with alerts to healthcare providers to assure stability in health. (Tran Col. 10 lines 5-35)
Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier and Tran do not explicitly teach generate the conditions, parameters, or criteria in the one or more smart contracts based on the set of real-time codes.
Wherein Abdulla teaches generate the conditions, parameters, or criteria in the one or more smart contract based on the set of real-time codes. (Par. (0020-0022); generate medical treatment and condition based on smart contract code)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier and Tran to incorporate the teaching of Abdulla to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of electronic health records of users in a system, with the motivation of creating parameters in the smart contract for code to create consistency in the electronic health records and implement a uniform system that can allows users to be aware of changes. (Abdulla Par. (0002))
In regards to Claim 16, claim 16 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 7 and the teachings of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier, Tran and Abdulla address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 7 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina and Cordonnier do not explicitly teach wherein the real-time codes include: code snippets configured to monitor for the EHR updates; and code snippets configured to generate one or more notifications based on the monitored EHR updates.
Wherein Tran teaches code snippets configured to monitor for the EHR updates; and (Col. 50 lines 5-35; pseudo code to determine updated health plan)
code snippets configured to generate one or more notifications based on the monitored EHR updates. (Col. 50 lines 50-67 and Col. 51 lines 1-15; pseudo code corresponding to flags sent when changes / new updates to patient PHT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier and Abdulla to incorporate the teaching of Tran to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and electronic health records, with the motivation of implementing parameters and criteria associated with the electronic health records and updates to enhance security protection of sensitive data and safeguard with updates the records of patients and communicate with alerts to healthcare providers to assure stability in health. (Tran Col. 10 lines 5-35)
In regards to Claim 17, claim 17 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 8 and the teachings of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier, Tran and Abdulla address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 8 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 9 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (WO Pub. No. 2022266293 (Retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Bradley”), DeRosa-Grund et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220270725, hereinafter referred to as “DeRosa-Grund”), Gardina et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220139566, hereinafter referred to as “Gardina”) Cordonnier et al. (U.S No. 11443838, hereinafter referred to as “Cordonnier”), Tran et al. (U.S No. 12182204, hereinafter referred to as “Tran”) and Abdulla et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210398687, hereinafter referred to as “Abdulla”) further in view of Singh et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220188664, hereinafter referred to as “Singh”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier, Tran and Abdulla do not explicitly teach wherein the real-time codes include: code snippets configured to submit, to one or more trained machine learning (ML) models, inference data including a subset of user data items in the set of user data items; and code snippets configured to receive a predicted diagnosis from the one or more trained ML models based on the inference data.
Wherein Singh teaches wherein the real-time codes include: code snippets configured to submit, to one or more trained machine learning (ML) models, inference data including a subset of user data items in the set of user data items; and (Par. (0083-0086); code occurrence to determine subset of pharmaceutical claim of user using machine learning inference)), (Par. (0024); subset of user data items (pharmaceutical claim corresponding to secondary event and entry data of patient profile))
code snippets configured to receive a predicted diagnosis from the one or more trained ML models based on the inference data. (Par. (0069); code snippets to receive predicted diagnosis (primary event include primary event code of diagnosis code), (Par. (0066-0073); receive a predicted diagnosis from the one or more trained ML models based on the inference data (predictive data analysis identifies primary event with diagnosis code and predicts using inference machine learning model), (Par. (0092-0093); predictive analysis determines If the primary event code with diagnosis code meets threshold and provides user predictive outputs using inference machine
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier, Tran and Abdulla to incorporate the teaching of Tran to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of the verification and tracking of health, with the motivation of implementing a predictive diagnosis with machine learning to train the system to identify possible health risk and further enhance medical technologies by quantifying data and producing results accurate with the users health. (Singh Par. (0019-0022))
In regards to Claim 18, claim 18 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 9 and the teachings of Bradley, DeRosa-Grund, Gardina, Cordonnier, Tran, Abdulla and Singh address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 9 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ROBELL; James Frederick (U.S Pub. No. 20240413999) “TECHNOLOGIES FOR CREATING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS”. Considered this reference because it addressed electronic health records and verification of NFTs.
SAAVEDRA; Rafael (U.S Pub. No. 20230385445) “TOKEN AND PRIVACY DEVICE AND METHOD”. Considered this application because it relates to electronic health records and token verification with hash values.
MARKS; John Caleb (U.S Pub. No. 20230045080) “ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIVE BREEDING PARAMETERS AND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS VIA UNIQUE IDENTITY ASSET MARKERS, AND RELATED SOFTWARE, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS”. Considered this application because it addressed blockchain technologies and health authentication/tracking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights