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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-13, drawn to a method for exchanging healthcare information, comprising: using a health informatics system to obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme; providing a first cryptographic key to a patient device after receiving a request from the patient device for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information; encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture by a clinician device; responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information to the clinician device, wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key, classified in G16H 80/00.
Claims 14-20, drawn to mobile computing device configured for wireless communications and comprising: at least one processing circuit configured to: cause the mobile computing device to collect medical condition information from a medical-monitoring or exercise application that is maintained by the mobile computing device and that is configured to monitor one or more sensors; cause the mobile computing device to automatically transmit a request for assistance when an anomaly or irregularity is detected by the medical- monitoring or exercise application; authorize a provider device to receive a data transfer from the mobile computing device, authorization of the provider device being based on information authenticating an identity of the provider device that is received from the provider device responsive to the anomaly or irregularity being detected by the medical-monitoring or exercise application; cause the mobile computing device to transfer the medical condition information collected by the mobile computing device to the provider device after the provider device has been authorized by the mobile computing device; and cause the mobile computing device to transfer access information to the provider device after the provider device has been authorized by the mobile computing device, wherein the access information is configured to enable the provider device to access a set of healthcare records in a network repository associated with the mobile computing device, classified in G06F 21/6245.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as cause the mobile computing device to collect medical condition information from a medical-monitoring or exercise application that is maintained by the mobile computing device and that is configured to monitor one or more sensors; cause the mobile computing device to automatically transmit a request for assistance when an anomaly or irregularity is detected by the medical- monitoring or exercise application; authorize a provider device to receive a data transfer from the mobile computing device, authorization of the provider device being based on information authenticating an identity of the provider device that is received from the provider device responsive to the anomaly or irregularity being detected by the medical-monitoring or exercise application. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Anthony Smyth (Reg. No. 55,636) on 11/20/2025, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key” in lines 12-13 (claim 1). However, the specification only seems to describe “a quick response code ("QR code" or "QRC") may be presented to a healthcare provider, whereby the QRC includes information that can be used to identify a network location of the records, cryptographic keys necessary to decrypt the records once retrieved from the network location” (¶ 0034); “capture the encoded optical image and extract the location of the container 618 and encryption keys need to decrypt the contents of the container 618” (¶ 0094); “capture the image…the image can be decoded to retrieve an encryption key and/or other information necessary to extract the coded medical information…encrypted coded medical information extracted from the image may be transmitted to the polyglot healthcare information system for decryption and to obtain recoded and/or translated versions of the coded medical information” (¶ 0140). The specification does not describe the claim limitations of “[decrypting] the optical code using the first cryptographic key.” For example, there is no specific description as to how the optical code itself is decrypted, let alone with the first cryptographic key; however, there is specific description in decoding the optical code to extract information to retrieve information to then be decrypted using the first cryptographic key. As such, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description. (The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to perform any form of the processing (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the processing is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention.) For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key” as: “wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has captured the optical code and decrypted information retrieved from information extracted from the optical code using the first cryptographic key.”
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/765,255 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 recites…obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme; providing a first cryptographic key…after receiving a request…for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information; encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture…; responsive to a request…, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information…, wherein the second medical information is provided…after…[decrypting] the optical code using the first cryptographic key.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions). That is, the claim encompasses rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., a healthcare informatics system; a patient device; a clinician device). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0027-0032; ¶ 0165-0169), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a healthcare informatics system” only invokes the healthcare informatics system merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a patient device” and “a clinician device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having a processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a healthcare informatics system” only invokes the healthcare informatics system merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a patient device” and “a clinician device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-13 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-13 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton").
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches a method for exchanging healthcare information, comprising:
using a health informatics system to obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme (Hill: figure 7k, i.e., “Summary Screen” includes “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.”; ¶ 0061, i.e., “FIGS. 7A-7N show various examples of user interfaces 131 of the client application 130 used to perform an ingestion process by prompting the user with various types of user input”; ¶ 0072);
providing a first cryptographic key to a patient device after receiving a request from the patient device for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information (Hill: ¶ 0060, i.e., “the key management service 115 manages the storage and transmission of the IV to the client devices 106…along with the cryptographic key 121”; ¶ 0079, i.e., “a user of the client application 130 can specify…a recipient of the data…the cryptographic key 121 can be pseudo-randomly generated by the client application 130 or the key management application 118. If generated by the client application 130, the cryptographic key 121 is transmitted to the key management application 118 which, in turn, communicates the cryptographic key 121 to…client device 106 as instructed by a user of the client application 130…When “Atlanta Health” is selected, the client application 130 may use the one or more cryptographic keys 121 stored in association with the “Atlanta Health” provider to encrypt information for use in a machine-readable identifier 133”; ¶ 0099, i.e., “the first cryptographic key 121a and the second cryptographic key 121b may be sent to the client device 106 by the key management application 118 or other similar service over the network 112”);
encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture by a clinician device (Hill: ¶ 0041, i.e., “generate a machine-readable identifier 133 that includes user input data encrypted with the cryptographic key 121 for the reader device 109”; ¶ 0054, i.e., “transformation of input data into a matrix code or other machine-readable identifier 133. Starting with step 603, user input is accessed. The user input may include, for example, health information”; ¶ 0075, i.e., “Using a reader device 109, the healthcare provider can scan the machine-readable identifier 133”);
Yet, Hill does not explicitly teach, but Experton teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “electronic healthcare records” of Experton as the “various types of user input” including “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first medical information; ¶ 0187; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data… When translated, individual medications and immunization data are matched to the corresponding specific data where the information is being reviewed”); and
providing the second medical information to the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., “The electronic healthcare records may be displayed…in a spoken language of a healthcare professional making use of the electronic healthcare records”; ¶ 0187-0188),
wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key (Experton: ¶ 0095, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “encryption keys need to decrypt the contents of the container 614” of Experton as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data via mobile to mobile communication in various means (QR code scanning…)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information to the clinician device, wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key, as taught by Experton, within the system of Hill, with the motivation “so that the medical information necessary for a patient to communicate or exchange with a healthcare professional is available at all times” (Experton: ¶ 0185).
Regarding claim 2, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
translating text elements indicated by the second medical information from a first language to a second language (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
replacing medical terms indicated by the second medical information with corresponding medical terms used by a clinician associated with the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0188-0189).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 3, wherein the medical terms used by the clinician are consistent with medical terms used in a country in which the clinician device is located (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
replacing pharmaceutical names indicated by the second medical information with corresponding pharmaceutical names known to a clinician associated with the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 5, wherein the pharmaceutical names known to the clinician are defined for pharmaceutical distribution in a country in which the clinician device is located (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 5, further comprising:
converting a medication name used in a first country to a corresponding medication name used in a second country (Hill: ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0066, i.e., “a user interface 131 illustrating an embodiment of a screen dedicated to obtaining current and past medications is shown which enables the user to provide current and previous medications”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding claim 8, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 5, further comprising:
converting a vaccine name used in a first country to a corresponding vaccine name used in a second country (Hill: ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0070, i.e., “a user interface 131 illustrates one embodiment that obtains immunizations from a user”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding claim 9, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 5, further comprising:
converting a drug allergy name used in a first country to a corresponding drug allergy name used in a second country (Hill: figure 7f, i.e., “Allergies” include “Lasix” as “Name of Medication(s)?”; ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0067, i.e., “a user interface 131 where a user can provide current and past allergies”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding claim 12, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first medical information corresponds to information provided by a user of the patient device (Hill: ¶ 0061, i.e., “FIGS. 7A-7N show various examples of user interfaces 131 of the client application 130 used to perform an ingestion process by prompting the user with various types of user input”; ¶ 0072).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton"), as applied to claims 1-9, 12, further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2014/0095882 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Spalka").
Regarding claim 10, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Spalka teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first cryptographic key is a time-limited key (Spalka: ¶ 0069-0070; ¶ 0128, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “key pairs” of Spalka as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first cryptographic key is a time-limited key, as taught by Spalka, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “If a user attempts to use an “expired” key pair Ki; i.e. the user opens a session on the information system in which he authenticates himself with the key pair then the information system denies him this” (Spalka: ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 11, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Spalka teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first cryptographic key is a one-time use key (Spalka: ¶ 0069; ¶ 0071; ¶ 0137, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “key pairs” of Spalka as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first cryptographic key is a one-time use key, as taught by Spalka, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “If the number of uses of a key pair Ki which has already taken place has reached its maximum number, the information system denies fresh use of Ki; the session is then thus not set up” (Spalka: ¶ 0071).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton"), as applied to claims 1-9, 12, 14, further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2015/0213195 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Blechman").
Regarding claim 13, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Blechman teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first medical information corresponds to information extracted from electronic healthcare records stored on the patient device (Blechman: figure 16, i.e., “behavior from PCHR data hub on registered devices” 1632 is used to populate “PCHR patient record” 1642; ¶ 0102, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “behavioral observations and…physiological parameters such as blood glucose, activity, heart rate and blood pressure” of Blechman as the “various types of user input” including “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first medical information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first medical information corresponds to information extracted from electronic healthcare records stored on the patient device, as taught by Blechman, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “enables patients and their support teams to collect, visualize and share merged behavioral observations and physiological results as the basis for day to day practical decisions about healthcare self-management and as the basis for evidence-based shared decision making with healthcare providers who can access patient-collected observations and results from their ECHR systems” (Blechman: ¶ 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0098096 A1 teaches decrypting with a key and providing user-specific data when a patient’s QR code is scanned.
EP 3451342 A1 teaches generating a QR code with a key to process a patient’s personal data.
“Interaction with medical data using QR-codes” teaches encrypting and decoding a patient’s laboratory results encapsulated within a QR-code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights