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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 13, 15 are subject to examination.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15 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.
Regarding, limitations of claim 1, recognizing, by the remote server, that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient; reviewing, by the remote server, one or more requirements relating to accessing information of the patient on the remote server, wherein the step of reviewing the one or more requirements is separate from a review of an access code entered by a practitioner of the second medical practice; and in response to recognizing that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient and determining that the one or more requirements are satisfied: granting, by the remote server, the second medical practice access to the first patient-related data stored in the first secured location, and automatically forwarding, by the remote server, the first patient-related data to the second medical practice;
The specification does not define following:
“recognizing that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient”, the medical practices (itself) are treating, The medical practices (itself) to treat(ing) the patient,
the server “reviewing” requirements, a review of an access code entered by a practitioner (how review is implemented,
implementation of access code,
the practitioner being different as compared to clinician for the claimed subject matter,
determining that the one or more requirements are “satisfied”, (what all is limited to for considering as satisfying)
granting, by the remote server, the second medical practice (itself) (rather a computer or the practice).
Specification, Page 15, lines 12-16 contains, The server processor 322
may be configured to grant one or more of the clinician processors 306, 316 access to the first
and second data respectively stored in the first and second secured locations 326, 328.
Claim 1 contains, “wherein the first patient-related data in the first secured location is accessible to a clinician associated with the first medical practice and unavailable to a clinician associated with the second medical practice”, “wherein the second patient-related data in the second secured location is accessible to the clinician associated with the second medical practice and unavailable to the clinician associated with the first medical practice”, which the specification does not define.
“clinician associated with the first medical practice”, does not claim how the clinician is associated with the first medical practice. As claimed, the claim contains that the clinician is merely (somehow) associated with the first medical practice. The claim contains comprising and is open for that the clinician associated with the first medical practice, is also associated with other medical practices including the second medical practice. A clinician is a clinician, for a doctor to be part/work at many medical practices is very common. The claimed subject matter does not stop the clinician associated with both the first medical practice and the second medical practice, etc. Note: These limitations are not implemented by the computer, but can mentally.
It is not clear what all is considered as “unavailable” to the clinician. When a user/clinician logs in to different medical institutions, the user/clinician is allowed to access all the systems remotely. The user/clinician doesn’t have to be at the institution. The claimed “unavailable” is not defined for any particular use, is beyond the scope of the specification, for example, when the user looses the connection, unable to login, loosing the password, the user/clinician to work at many medical institutions, etc.
Claim 1 contains, a first secured location of a memory of the remote server, a second secured location of a memory of the remote server, which the specification does not define.
The specification does not define which locations of the memory(s) are considered as secured as compared to non-secured. The specification does not define how locations of the memory(s) are considered implemented as secured as compared to non-secured. The specification does not define where locations belong to in the memory, for example, both last, middle, first, etc., locations. The claim contains, “a memory” (twice), which is not subject to that it must be distinct, as compared to the storage of the server. The secure access to the server allows to the access secured location, which is not same as having secure partitions(location) in the memory.
Claim 1 contains, “first patient-related data”, second patient-related data” are not defined in the specification. The related does not preclude any data. For example, name, spouse name, address, x-ray, son, relatives, patient’s doctor, medical data only, billing, etc.
Claim 1 contains, “receiving, at a remote server, first patient-related data from a first processor of a first patient system of from a first medical practice for a patient; receiving, at the remote server, second patient-related data from a second processor of a second patient system of a second medical practice for the patient, wherein the first and second medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system”
However line 20, page 4 states: Typically, the first and second medical practices 100, 120 are legally unaffiliated.
“distinct” means “different”. However, both first patient system and second patient system are “patient systems” and not limited to “different”. The specification does not define “unavailable”. Both the systems are connected to a “server” and the data of one system is provided to another system via server. Also, there is nothing that prevents the first system to communicate to the second patient system. The receiving steps would receive the data from the system(s) regardless of “medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system”.
Limitations, “medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system” do not stop the receiving of the data from the two systems.
Claims 2-8, 13, 15 depend upon claim 1 and hence subject to the same rejections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, limitations, “wherein the first patient-related data in the first secured location is accessible to a clinician associated with the first medical practice and unavailable to a clinician associated with the second medical practice” “wherein the second patient-related data in the second secured location is accessible to the clinician associated with the second medical practice and unavailable to the clinician associated with the first medical practice”". The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on who/what performs the function, i.e. the server, first medical practice or the second medical practice, the processor of first medical practice, the processor of second medical practice. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 2-8, 13, 15 depend upon claim 1 and hence subject to the same rejections.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Determining step before the receiving step,
To determine, that the first and second medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system;
Another determining step,
To determine, that the first patient-related data in the first secured location is accessible to a clinician associated with the first medical practice and unavailable to a clinician associated with the second medical practice
Another determining step,
To determine, that the second patient-related data in the second secured location is accessible to the clinician associated with the second medical practice and unavailable to the clinician associated with the first medical practice
Note: mere receiving data and storing to the data cannot accomplish these limitations.
Claims 2-8, 13, 15 depend upon claim 1 and hence subject to the same rejections.
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.
Amended claims, 1-8, 13, 15 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.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15 are drawn to a method which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, recites, recognizing that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient, reviewing one or more requirements relating to accessing information of the patient on the server, the first and second medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system, the first patient-related data in the first secured location is accessible to a clinician associated with the first medical practice and unavailable to a clinician associated with the second medical practice, the second patient-related data in the second secured location is accessible to the clinician associated with the second medical practice and unavailable to the clinician associated with the first medical practice, reviewing the one or more requirements is separate from a review of an access code entered by a practitioner of the second medical practice, in response to recognizing that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient and determining that the one or more requirements are satisfied: granting, by the remote server, the second medical practice access to the first patient-related data stored in the first secured location
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of forwarding data to a second medical practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (users/clinicians/medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” “Certain Methods of Health card systems using the medical records among involved users/clinicians” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “remote server”, “first medical practice”, “first medical practice”, “access code”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the receiving, recognizing, reviewing, automatically forwarding, accessing, is no more than a statement that software instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). They amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed “remote server”, “first medical practice”, “first medical practice”, “access code” are generic.
Hence, 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 (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The healthcare industry generically uses “remote server”, “first medical practice”, “first medical practice”, “access code” for caring a patient.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply use the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with identify of caregiver (user) for obtaining information from directory/store for the caregiver/user, conventional activity (for verifying a user) specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-8, 13, 15, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim 2, recites, receiving authorization from the first medical practice
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of receiving data from the first medical practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3, recites, comparing a first sharing key provided by the first medical practice to the and a second sharing key, provided by the second medical practice
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of comparing the keys (data) from the medical practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4, recites, wherein the first patient-related data includes patient medical data and the first sharing key
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of comparing data from the medical practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5, recites, wherein the second patient-related data includes patient medical data and the second sharing key
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of comparing data from the medical practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6, recites, wherein the first sharing key is obtained by the first medical practice via interrogation of a medical device assigned to the patient
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of obtaining data from the patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7, recites, wherein the medical device assigned to the patient is one of a therapy device and a diagnostic device
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of obtaining data from the generic device of the patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8, recites, wherein the medical device assigned to the patient is one of an implanted medical device and an external medical device
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of obtaining data from the generic device of the patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13, recites,
automatically forwarding the second patient-related data to the first medical practice when the one or more requirements are satisfied.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of forwarding data in the generic devices/systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15, recites,
granting, to the first medical practice, access to the data associated
with the patient saved in a memory.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of granting another user/device/system to access data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (medical practices) and patient for whom the data is forwarded, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Highley, US 20130218599 A1.
Referring to claim 1, Highley discloses,
a method comprising:
([0032] In operation, system 100 in various embodiments permits authorized access to medical records stored via server 120.)
[0021] Functional interoperability provides a functional solution to data sharing at the point of care. A privileged provider (having a verified identity, being credentialed by a delivery system, and authenticated) can access the server where the patient's full web record is stored to access that information. For example, the privileged provider can read from a record in Illinois and write orders in their own CIS in Oregon.
receiving, at a remote server, first patient-related data from a first processor of a first patient system of from a first medical practice for a patient;
[0005] a medical record system is disclosed that robustly, timely, accurately, and securely delivers necessary medical records to arbitrary-but-authorized medical providers in an interoperative fashion, even during times of public disasters and emergencies. The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals.
[0030] Server 120 provides a Clinical Operating System (COS) that can connect various stations to a common integrated record that operates in real time. The COS system can create a process for a "longitudinal record," where each original episode of care is appended over time and across delivery systems.
Note: Hence, the medical information is received over time from the provider, which COS uses.
[0029] For example, if a Mr. Stewart, a patient of a Dr. Jones at the University of Washington gets sick while traveling in New York, a Dr. Peck at Cornell can get access to Mr. Stewart's electronic record back in Seattle by having the patient insert his card 132 and type in a password. If Cornell and U.W. are subscribers to the GPMR Private Network, then Dr. Peck can read the record stored in a Cerner-CIS (a first proprietary system) in Seattle even though he regularly uses a HBOC-CIS (a second proprietary system) at Cornell. This allows different CIS systems to effectively communicate with each other by only sharing security access. This protects proprietary CIS systems, while promoting universal access.
receiving, at the remote server, second patient-related data from a second processor of a second patient system of a second medical practice for the patient,
[0005] a medical record system is disclosed that robustly, timely, accurately, and securely delivers necessary medical records to arbitrary-but-authorized medical providers in an interoperative fashion, even during times of public disasters and emergencies. The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals.
[0030] Server 120 provides a Clinical Operating System (COS) that can connect various stations to a common integrated record that operates in real time. The COS system can create a process for a "longitudinal record," where each original episode of care is appended over time and across delivery systems.
Note: Hence, the medical information is received over time from another the provider, which COS uses.
wherein the first and second medical practices are legally unaffiliated such that the first patient system is distinct from and unavailable to the second patient system;
[0020] Delivery systems have to agree to use the same security protocol to access their CIS. Provider smart cards can be used to log on to disparate CISs, wherever the patient's data resides and independent of the information system. The global portable medical record belongs to the patient (as compared to the institution) and when the patient gives permission only that patient's record for that session can be pulled up and accessed on that CIS.
Note: Regardless of the limitations of wherein statement the receiving of the patient(s)data is performed.
[0021] For example, the privileged provider can read from a record in Illinois and write orders in their own CIS in Oregon.
initially storing, by the remote server, the first patient-related data in a first secured location of a memory of the remote server, initially storing, by the remote server, the second patient-related data in a second secured location of a memory of the remote server,
[0030] Server 120 provides a Clinical Operating System (COS) that can connect various stations to a common integrated record that operates in real time.The COS system can create a process for a "longitudinal record," where each original episode of care is appended over time and across delivery systems into a single medical record.
the user-owned nonvolatile memory comprising multiple logical partitions, where access to each logical partition is based upon an access level categorized by a provider's identification data and with information comprising a plurality of Global Portable Medical Record (GPMR) episodes, each GPRM episode being associated with a partition based upon a corresponding episode access level; the local station configured to: retrieve, from an open access partition the nonvolatile memory data comprises, an indicia of authenticity and an indicia of user identity; based upon retrieved indicia of user identity, provide user authentication data to local station to determine a user access level; where network communication is sufficient to enable secure communication between the local station and a Clinical Operating System (COS) server, the local station is further configured to perform the following: provide to the COS server the session key, the provider identification data, and the user access level; synchronize, in a corresponding one of the plurality of partitions, each GPRM episode, the partition selected to be consistent with the GPRM episode's security level, claim 11
wherein the first patient-related data in the first secured location is accessible to a clinician associated with the first medical practice and unavailable to a clinician associated with the second medical practice; wherein the second patient-related data in the second secured location is accessible to the clinician associated with the second medical practice and unavailable to the clinician associated with the first medical practice;
(The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
Both the consumer and provider media devices are normally authenticated before access to the consumer records is granted, abstract. Note: without granting of access to the records, no other patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals can access the records (unavailable to them).
[0029] For example, if a Mr. Stewart, a patient of a Dr. Jones at the University of Washington gets sick while traveling in New York, a Dr. Peck at Cornell can get access to Mr. Stewart's electronic record back in Seattle by having the patient insert his card 132 and type in a password. If Cornell and U.W. are subscribers to the GPMR Private Network, then Dr. Peck can read the record stored in a Cerner-CIS (a first proprietary system) in Seattle even though he regularly uses a HBOC-CIS (a second proprietary system) at Cornell. This allows different CIS systems to effectively communicate with each other by only sharing security access. This protects proprietary CIS systems, while promoting universal access.
the user-owned nonvolatile memory comprising multiple logical partitions, where access to each logical partition is based upon an access level categorized by a provider's identification data and with information comprising a plurality of Global Portable Medical Record (GPMR) episodes, each GPRM episode being associated with a partition based upon a corresponding episode access level; the local station configured to: retrieve, from an open access partition the nonvolatile memory data comprises, an indicia of authenticity and an indicia of user identity; based upon retrieved indicia of user identity, provide user authentication data to local station to determine a user access level; where network communication is sufficient to enable secure communication between the local station and a Clinical Operating System (COS) server, the local station is further configured to perform the following: provide to the COS server the session key, the provider identification data, and the user access level; synchronize, in a corresponding one of the plurality of partitions, each GPRM episode, the partition selected to be consistent with the GPRM episode's security level, claim 11
recognizing, by the remote server, that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient
( [0008] The medical record system can provide a longitudinal record of original data over time and across delivery systems. In operation, each institution records the current episode of care and adds that original data to an ongoing longitudinal record. The patient carries a smart card with core data for emergency use and a link (such as a URL) to the server where their entire medical record is housed. In this way, universal access is provided to an ultra secure, fully integrated, real time, portable medical record that aggregates original data over time and across delivery systems. Integration and connectivity will typically decrease medical errors, improve care and reduce costs.)
(The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
reviewing, by the remote server, one or more requirements relating to accessing information of the patient on the remote server,
[0032] In operation, system 100 in various embodiments permits authorized access to medical records stored via server 120. When a provider card 102 is inserted into a station 104 and authenticated (108), a session key is generated (110) by the card and sent to server 120 along with the cardholder's name, ID number, and access level.
[0019] In a smart card system normally only the record that passed all of the security requirements can be accessed.)
[0017] Dual Access Security (DAS) refers to a method for security access to medical records. To access a portable medical record requires (at least) two keys and two passwords to enter either the portable medical record or the web record. Accordingly, the patient normally needs to have physical possession of their GPMR (which contains at least one first key). The patient inserts (physically and/or logically) the GPMR (which is typically in the form of a CPU card such as a smart card) into a reader that has been issued and authenticated by the private network and gives permission to access the record by entering one of two pre-determined passwords (for example, one password for the regular record and a second password for information the patient has pre-selected as being sensitive to them). When the patient has been authenticated and permission granted, the patient will typically withdraw the card.
wherein the step of reviewing the one or more requirements is separate from a review of an access code entered by a practitioner of the second medical practice; and
[0018] A second key and password are normally required by a provider to enter the system/VPN. The provider (such as a physician) inserts their microchip identity card issued and authenticated by the network. A biometric marker such as a fingerprint may be requested as well. If the card's security number(s) and biometrics match the user ID and password pre-validated within the system, then the card is authenticated and access to the patient's record will be allowed, typically if the patient gives (or has otherwise given) consent. (The provider typically activates the system first so the patient can use the patient's card to give consent). The patient's identifier can be a larger-than-9-digit number preceded by a 4-digit insurance code. The physician's identifier can also be larger-than-9-digit number preceded by a number (or other identifier) of the delivery system in which the physician is privileged. The physician may have several such identifiers on the physician provider card. If the insurance codes match, the physician is implicit permission to enter, modify, or delete information from the record stored on the patient medical record. If the codes do not match, then the patient's password can be given as consent to release medical information. In various embodiments, bio-metric markers (such as fingerprint, voice, retinal scan, and the like) can be used. If the biometric markers, the passwords and/or other pre-installed security codes match, the record can then be accessed.
(The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
in response to recognizing that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient
( [0008] The medical record system can provide a longitudinal record of original data over time and across delivery systems. In operation, each institution records the current episode of care and adds that original data to an ongoing longitudinal record. The patient carries a smart card with core data for emergency use and a link (such as a URL) to the server where their entire medical record is housed. In this way, universal access is provided to an ultra secure, fully integrated, real time, portable medical record that aggregates original data over time and across delivery systems. Integration and connectivity will typically decrease medical errors, improve care and reduce costs.)
determining that the one or more requirements are satisfied (
The physician may have several such identifiers on the physician provider card. If the insurance codes match, the physician is implicit permission to enter, modify, or delete information from the record stored on the patient medical record. If the codes do not match, then the patient's password can be given as consent to release medical information. In various embodiments, bio-metric markers (such as fingerprint, voice, retinal scan, and the like) can be used. If the biometric markers, the passwords and/or other pre-installed security codes match, the record can then be accessed, para 18
[0017] Dual Access Security (DAS) refers to a method for security access to medical records. To access a portable medical record requires (at least) two keys and two passwords to enter either the portable medical record or the web record. Accordingly, the patient normally needs to have physical possession of their GPMR (which contains at least one first key). The patient inserts (physically and/or logically) the GPMR (which is typically in the form of a CPU card such as a smart card) into a reader that has been issued and authenticated by the private network and gives permission to access the record by entering one of two pre-determined passwords (for example, one password for the regular record and a second password for information the patient has pre-selected as being sensitive to them). When the patient has been authenticated and permission granted, the patient will typically withdraw the card.
granting, by the remote server, the second medical practice access to the first patient-related data stored in the first secured location,
(A secure system for accessing records uses a provider media device and a consumer media device to access records associated with the consumer. Both the consumer and provider media devices are normally authenticated before access to the consumer records is granted. Records can be centrally stored in a central location, abstract)
(The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
automatically forwarding, by the remote server, the first patient-related data to the second medical practice
( a medical record system is disclosed that robustly, timely, accurately, and securely delivers necessary medical records to arbitrary-but-authorized medical providers in an interoperative fashion, even during times of public disasters and emergencies. The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
[0029] For example, if a Mr. Stewart, a patient of a Dr. Jones at the University of Washington gets sick while traveling in New York, a Dr. Peck at Cornell can get access to Mr. Stewart's electronic record back in Seattle by having the patient insert his card 132 and type in a password. If Cornell and U.W. are subscribers to the GPMR Private Network, then Dr. Peck can read the record stored in a Cerner-CIS (a first proprietary system) in Seattle even though he regularly uses a HBOC-CIS (a second proprietary system) at Cornell. This allows different CIS systems to effectively communicate with each other by only sharing security access. This protects proprietary CIS systems, while promoting universal access.
Referring to claim 2, Highley discloses, wherein the requirement includes the remote server receiving authorization from the first medical practice,
[0032] In operation, system 100 in various embodiments permits authorized access to medical records stored via server 120. When a provider card 102 is inserted into a station 104 and authenticated (108), a session key is generated (110) by the card and sent to server 120 along with the cardholder's name, ID number, and access level.
[0019] In a smart card system normally only the record that passed all of the security requirements can be accessed.)
[0017] Dual Access Security (DAS) refers to a method for security access to medical records. To access a portable medical record requires (at least) two keys and two passwords to enter either the portable medical record or the web record. Accordingly, the patient normally needs to have physical possession of their GPMR (which contains at least one first key). The patient inserts (physically and/or logically) the GPMR (which is typically in the form of a CPU card such as a smart card) into a reader that has been issued and authenticated by the private network and gives permission to access the record by entering one of two pre-determined passwords (for example, one password for the regular record and a second password for information the patient has pre-selected as being sensitive to them). When the patient has been authenticated and permission granted, the patient will typically withdraw the card.
[0018] A second key and password are normally required by a provider to enter the system/VPN. The provider (such as a physician) inserts their microchip identity card issued and authenticated by the network. A biometric marker such as a fingerprint may be requested as well. If the card's security number(s) and biometrics match the user ID and password pre-validated within the system, then the card is authenticated and access to the patient's record will be allowed, typically if the patient gives (or has otherwise given) consent. (The provider typically activates the system first so the patient can use the patient's card to give consent). The patient's identifier can be a larger-than-9-digit number preceded by a 4-digit insurance code. The physician's identifier can also be larger-than-9-digit number preceded by a number (or other identifier) of the delivery system in which the physician is privileged. The physician may have several such identifiers on the physician provider card. If the insurance codes match, the physician is implicit permission to enter, modify, or delete information from the record stored on the patient medical record. If the codes do not match, then the patient's password can be given as consent to release medical information. In various embodiments, bio-metric markers (such as fingerprint, voice, retinal scan, and the like) can be used. If the biometric markers, the passwords and/or other pre-installed security codes match, the record can then be accessed.
(The medical record system would connect patients, providers, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, payers, and producers through a secure private network that operates in real time, para 5)
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Highley in view of Godfrey et al., 20110154041, and Wold et al., 10805071.
Referring to claim(s) 3, Highley discloses, medical practices, the remote server, first entity and second entity as cited in claim 1. Highley does not disclose, which Godfrey discloses, a first sharing key provided (among various devices, para 27, server generating a shared key that is unique to server and a first device, claim 22, authenticating by the server the shared key which includes comparing, claim 9, para 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Highley to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing a well-known sharing key. The sharing key would enable a message to communicate among devices that has a key that is known to both client and a server. The key would enable encrypted communication for security. C
Highley and Godfrey do not disclose, which Wold discloses, a second sharing key provided, and comparing (
protecting and sharing digital data between entities in a network, comprising: a communication network, devices, a network connected server, computing resources in each of the devices for encryption and decryption of user data and encryption key parts, computing resources in the network connected server for encryption and decryption of the user data and the encryption key parts, a key management services, an identity management services, and user data to be protected, stored and shared in the network connected server, wherein the each of the devices is configured to: generate, a Personal Key Pair comprising a first public key and a first private key, each of the user devices being connected to the network connected server, wherein the network connected server is configured to store and provide access to first public keys of each of the devices; access, via the network connected server, a respective Store and a corresponding StoreKeyPair comprising a StorePublic and a StoreKey, the StorePublic being a second public key and the StoreKey being a second private key, wherein the StorePublic of the devices is stored at the network connected server and is available to each of the devices authorized to access the respective Store, and wherein each Store belongs to a an entity, and the entity shares the keys via the server; wherein the entities are further configured to encrypt the StoreSecret with the first public key of a corresponding entity being authorized to access the respective Store; and store the encrypted StoreKey at the network connected server, claim 10
secure sharing of encrypted information in a cloud system, each entity joining and accessing a shared folder by individual encrypted key material transferred, abstract
(98) how to generate on a first device d.sub.1,1 of a first user u.sub.1, store in the cloud c.sub.1 and retrieve to a first device d.sub.1,2 of the second user u.sub.2, a ShareKeyPair (k, k′.sub.2) and a ShareSecret S.sub.2. When the entity generates the Share k.sub.2 the first time a ShareKeyPair k,k.sub.2 generated on the first device d.sub.1,1 of the device. Next a ShareSecret s.sub.2is generated on the same device d.sub.1,1. Sharing with a second user u.sub.2, the first entity retrieve the second users Certificate, col., 11, lines 31-55
(99) When Certificate of the second entity retrieved and now exists on the device of the first entity, the ShareSecret is enrypted with the Certificate of both the first and second devices. Then the ShareKey is used to encrypt the ShareSecret. Now the information is put on the cloud which can now be retrieved by the entity of the second user, col., 11, lines 31-55
(100) The share key is retrieved on the device of the second entity. Now the ShareKayPair has been successfully been retrieved by and exists on the device, col., 11, lines 31-55,
(103) how to share the share discussed above with the first u.sub.1 and further user u.sub.3, called the third user u.sub.3, with a fourth user u.sub.4 has generated own UserKeyPair, Now a new ShareSecret s.sub.4 is generated on the first device of the first user whereupon this new ShareSecret s.sub.4 is used to encrypt the ShareKeys . Now {s.sub.4{k′.sub.2},s.sub.4{k′.sub.3}} exists on d.sub.1,1. New ShareSecret s.sub.4 is eitherstored on a separate cloud store c.sub.2, or equivalent, not accessible by the first cloud c.sub.1., col., 12, lines 25-35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Highley to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing a well-known second sharing key. The second sharing key would enable a message to communicate a key among devices that is known to both client and a server. The second shared key would enable encrypted communication for security. C
Referring to claim(s) 4, Highley discloses, patient medical data as cited in claim 1. Godfrey discloses a first sharing key provided as cited in claim 3.
Referring to claim(s) 13, Highley discloses, in above claim 1 citations, and claim 3 citations also disclose automatically forwarding, by the remote server, the second patient-related data to the first medical practice when the requirement is satisfied.
Referring to claim(s) 15, Highley discloses, in above claim 1 citations, medical practice, and claim 3 citations also disclose granting, to the first medical practice by the remote server, access to second patient-related the data associated with the patient saved in second secured location of the memory of the remote server.
Claim(s) 5-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Highley in view of, Godfrey, Wold, and Krishnan et al. 20150089590
Referring to claim(s) 5, Highley discloses, medical practices, the remote server, first entity and second entity, patient medical data as cited in claim 1. Highley, Godfrey, Wold does not disclose, which Krishnan discloses, discloses a second sharing key.
[0052] The central device is the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD). The protocol describes that only one Smartphone or other mobile device is registered with the patient-ICD. At the beginning of the implantation process, a symmetric secret key (K.sub.ICD in our example) is exchanged between the Smartphone or other mobile device and the ICD. It is designed such that no Smartphone or other mobile device other than the registered one will be able to communicate with the ICD. At the hospital where the patient had the ICD device implanted, one or more External Programmers (EP) may be available. The external programmers are assumed to be only operated by the authorized medical staffs from the hospital. One or more external programmer can be registered to the Smartphone or other mobile device. That means a Smartphone or other mobile device can share different secret keys with different external programmers or can share a single key with all of them. It is recommended, though, that a unique key be shared with each EP. The programmers with which the Smartphone or other mobile device share the secret key are known as preregistered external programmers (EP). There can be situation where the patient is not located in a regular hospital and is in need of treatment. In that scenario an external programmer without a pre-shared key may be used. Those are categorized as unknown external programmers. Unknown external programmers may be temporarily or permanently registered to the authentication proxy.
[0004] Certain embodiments are directed to a smartphone or other mobile device-based security scheme for permanent pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs). Smartphone or other mobile device leverages the Guardian [2] and the Shield [7]. They are external wearable devices that manage communication between the IMD and the external programmer to provide security in regular conditions and safety in emergency situations. External programmers are usually operated by an authorized medical practitioner or a doctor. The described security protocol for access control is based on symmetric key cryptography and uses Smartphone or other mobile device as an authentication and key management device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Highley to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing a well-known sharing key. The sharing key would enable a message to communicate a key among devices that is known to both client and a server. The key would enable encrypted communication for security. C
Referring to claim(s) 6, Krishnan also discloses, the second sharing key. Krishnan also discloses wherein the first sharing key is obtained by the first medical practice via interrogation of a medical device assigned to the patient, para 52, 4.
Referring to claim(s) 7, Krishnan also discloses, one of a therapy device and a diagnostic device, para 52, 4.
Referring to claim(s) 8, Krishnan also discloses, one of an implanted medical device and an external medical device, para 52, 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 9/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) is considered but not persuasive.
Regarding statements, With this Response, claim 1 has been amended to more expressly recite the secured electronic data architecture disclosed in the pending application. In particular, amended claim 1 now recites two legally unaffiliated medical practices having distinct patient systems unavailable to one another. Patient-related data received from those systems is initially maintained in different secured locations of a remote server memory. The fist practice's data is initially unavailable to a clinician of the second practice, and the second practice's data is initially unavailable to a clinician of the first practice. After the server recognizes that the practices are treating the same patient and determines that the separately reviewed access requirements are satisfied, the server grants the second practice access to the first practice's previously unavailable data and automatically forwards that data to the second practice.
However, the limitations, two legally unaffiliated medical practices having distinct patient systems unavailable to one another, etc. are not implemented by any particular system, rather subject to be implemented by mental process. Also, the receiving would be performed regardless.
The claimed steps performed by the server are “Certain Methods of Health card systems using the medical records securely among involved users/clinicians”.
Regarding statements,
Amended claim 1, considered as a whole, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Amended claim 1 recites receiving electronic patient-related data at a remote server from processors of two distinct patient systems; storing that data in different secured locations of server memory; enforcing different initial access restrictions for the secured locations; granting access to data that was previously unavailable; and automatically forwarding the data to the newly authorized medical practice. A person cannot, mentally or with pen and paper, constitute a remote server, store electronic data in secured server memory locations, enforce electronic access restrictions, modify those restrictions, and automatically transmit electronic data to a separate medical practice;
The two distinct patent systems has no impact on the receiving steps as the receiving is done regardless. There is no “network” in the claim. “enforcing different initial access restrictions for the secured locations”, granting access to data that was previously unavailable, automatically forwarding the data to the newly authorized medical practice, is not in the claim. Hence, what is in the claim is subject to mental implementation. The claims do not include additional elements (besides the server, memory, storage, etc), that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the statements,
The additional limitations therefore do more than append a generic instruction to use a computer. They require a specific arrangement of otherwise isolated patient systems and separately secured server data, followed by a defined server-controlled change from an initial restricted access state to ta state in which the second practice is granted access to, and receives, the first practice's previously unavailable data. The recognition and requirements review have a concrete effect on operation of the server and its secured data.
However, the receiving of data would be performed regardless of the specific arrangement of otherwise isolated patient systems. The separately secured server data is still data and two records are stored separately not withing each other.
Regarding the recognition and review by the server, which is what a generic computer does.
Due to amendments to the claims, the claimed subject matter falls under, “Certain Methods of Health card systems using the medical records securely among involved users/clinicians”.
Regarding, 103 rejections, a new prior art is provided for the rejections of claim 1.
Conclusion
Pertinent refences:
Maresh et al., US 20090112882 A1 discloses the server to automatically forward the data, for example, medical data, para 177.
Hayes et al., US 20160296143 A1 discloses the server to automatically forward the data, for example, medical data, para 70.
Miodownik et al., US 20060089539 A1 discloses the server to automatically forward the data, for example, medical data, para 110
Segal 2001/0041991-A1
[0027] an authorized user, who may be, for example, the patient, a relative of the patient, or the patient's physician, enters textual information through an online Internet connection that interfaces with the GUIs and the web server. The web server stores in the clinical database the textual data received through the GUIs. The image server receives the file and transmits the file to the archives for storage.
[0028] With the data entered into the medical record, the present invention further provides means to retrieve and transmit the medical data. A user with authorized access to the medical record (e.g.primary physician) interfaces through an online Internet connection with the GUIs provisioned on the web server. the web server consults the clinical database, retrieves the record, and transmits it. the image server to retrieve the diagnostic-quality image from the archives. The image server returns the medical record to the web server and the web server transmits the record. the present invention can return the record to a destination (e.g., a distant medical specialist).
[0024] encourage a network of participating physicians, preferably primary care physicians and radiologists, to create a medical record The primary physicians, aimed at deciding what data should be included in and excluded from a patient's medical record. Under the physician's guidance, the patient enters the data into the medical record and owns and controls the entire medical record. In the end, the patient owns a focused medical record that enables the primary physician and other specialists to make efficient medical assessments based on concise medical records.
recognizing, by the remote server, that the first medical practice and the second medical practice are treating the patient;
[0084] a website-accessible database on the Internet that gathers and disseminates information related to patient medical records. Users, e.g., patients and physicians, can access clinical database 118, image archive 128
[0106] controlling access to the medical records using UPIs, passwords, and physician access codes. A physician uses a separate access code (and the UPI), which allows access to a patient's record for viewing and/or updating. number unique to every patient, which is used to associate all records of a patient. With this unique tag, the present invention easily matches
[0084] a website-accessible database on the Internet that gathers and disseminates information related to patient medical records. Users, e.g., patients and physicians, can access clinical database 118, image archive 128, web-enabler 104, and expanded memory image archive 105 via the website. A user can enter, modify, and obtain information contained in the server databases.
[0106] A physician uses a separate access code (and the UPI), which allows access to a patient's record for viewing and/or updating. In the present invention easily matches and gathers a patient's records across different proprietary patient information systems, such as non-affiliated clinics and hospitals. [0140] A means for conveying a patient's entire medical record.
[0111] While browsing the website of the present invention and entering data, the physician can access these components at any time by clicking on the structured tabs displayed on every screen. Each screen resembles a form from a conventional medical chart and includes explanatory remarks and instructions.
[0139] As FIG. 8a shows, an authorized user, such as a patient or physician, accesses the medical record by first opening the web page of the present invention and logging in with the UPI and password or access code.
[0084] The preferred embodiment of the present invention is implemented as a website-accessible database on the Internet that gathers and disseminates information related to patient medical records. Users, e.g., patients and physicians, can access clinical database 118, account database 132, image archive 128, web-enabler 104, and expanded memory
[0082] The plurality of referral physicians 108 includes specialists and radiologists who receive through the Internet 99 medical records. The plurality of physicians 108 may also access and update patient medical records
[0106] the patient with ownership and control of her own medical record, controlling access to the medical records using UPIs, passwords, and physician access codes. A physician uses a separate access code (and the UPI), which allows access to a patient's record when the patient has granted permission for viewing and/or updating. number unique to every patient, which is used to associate all records of a patient. With this unique tag, the present invention easily matches and gathers a patient's records across different proprietary patient information systems, such as non-affiliated clinics and hospitals.
[0021] creating, storing, accessing, updating, and distributing patient medical records, especially the coordinated care of the patient and physician. focused online medical record storage, facilitates a patient-physician partnership by which to create and maintain the focused online medical records, provides means for obtaining and storing diagnostic-quality images, establishes Internet-based communication through which to transmit medical records, provides immediate means for conveying critical medical information in emergency situations, and provides means for storing, receiving, and transmitting information.
[0072] providing web-based medical record management for patients. A website operation that registers, establishes, and manages patient medical record accounts. implementing a medical record management service .
[0081] The plurality of primary physicians 106, including primary doctors' offices and radiological imaging centers, provides consultations with patients to assist in formulating focused medical records. The plurality of primary physicians 106 also serves as a location for registering patients, Finally, the plurality of primary physicians 106 also accesses and updates patient medical records.
[0082] The plurality of referral physicians 108 includes specialists and radiologists who receive through the Internet 99 medical records for further analysis, e.g., second opinions. The plurality of referral physicians 108 may also access and update patient medical records.
[0084] a website-accessible database on the Internet that gathers and disseminates information related to patient medical records. Users, e.g., patients and physicians, can access clinical database 118, image archive 128, web-enabler 104, and expanded memory image archive 105 via the website. A user can enter, modify, and obtain information contained in the server databases.
[0091] My Medical Folder is to assist a patient in working with a primary physician to establish a focused medical record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3973. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado, can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/HARESH N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
