DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the request for continued examination filed on February 17, 2026. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection has been fully considered but moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purusothaman (USPPN: 2019/0057775; hereinafter Purusothaman) and in further view of Paisley (WO 2021/159167; hereinafter Paisley) and Grunwald (USPPN: 2016/0278869; hereinafter Grunwald).
As to claim 1, Purusothaman teaches A system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving identity information about a patient and contextual information about a medical professional (e.g., see [0007], [0013], [0042] wherein patient data and physician information, such as field of expertise, are received by the system);
transmitting, using a diagnostic assistant tool and by using a first communication protocol, a first query to a first computing system, the first query comprising a request for a first set of data relating to the first patient (e.g., see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0049]-[0050], [0056], [0059], [0064] wherein first and second set of patient data can be requested from disparate sources using a secure communication network, wherein at least one source can further utilize a diagnostic tool);
receiving, by the diagnostic assistant tool and in response to transmitting the first query, the first set of data from the first computing system and using the first communication protocol (e.g., see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0049]-[0050], [0056], [0059], [0064] wherein first and second set of patient data can be requested from and received by disparate sources using a secure communication network, wherein at least one source can further utilize a diagnostic tool);
transmitting, by the diagnostic assistant tool, a second query to a second computing system, the second query comprising a request for a second set of data relating to the first patient (e.g., see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0049]-[0050], [0059] wherein first and second set of patient data can be requested from disparate sources, wherein at least one source can further utilize a diagnostic tool);
receiving, by the diagnostic assistant tool and in response to transmitting the second query, the second set of data from the second computing system (e.g., see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0049]-[0050], [0056], [0059], [0064] wherein first and second set of patient data can be requested from and received by disparate sources using a secure communication network, wherein at least one source can further utilize a diagnostic tool);
storing at least a portion of the first set of data or the second set of data in at least one of a plurality of virtual private clouds, the plurality of virtual private clouds including a virtual private cloud configured to store patient identifiable information (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0051], [0054], [0081] wherein the patient data from disparate sources is stored in the centralized system, the centralized system can be implement as a private cloud network, see also Fig. 2 illustrating the system as a cloud);
aggregating and de-deduplicating the first set of data and the second set of data using a data repository (e.g., see Fig. 3, [0051], [0053] wherein the patient data is consolidated in a manner which avoids duplication);
providing, to the medical professional, from a data repository, de-duplicated data about the patient to facilitate an interaction between the medical professional and the patient (e.g., see Fig. 17, [0060]-[0062], [0077] wherein the data, which is not duplicated, is used for diagnosing the patient. Notably, The claim limitation of “to facilitate an interaction between the medical profession and the patient” is interpreted as being an intended result. Applicant is remined that, typically, no patentable distinction is made by an intended result unless some structural difference is imposed by the result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the result on the action recited in the claim. An intended result is a description of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (See MPEP 2111.05). Here, Purusothaman teaches providing the non-duplicated patient data to the diagnosis module, wherein the physician is able to make more accurate diagnoses and engage more effectively with the patient (e.g., see [0047]), Purusothaman, therefore, teaches the limitation).
While Purusothaman teaches transmitting and receiving patient data between disparate sources using a communication network and diagnostic tool, Purusothaman fails to teach a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol, wherein the first computing system and the second computing system are disjunctive such that the first computing system is not configured to be integrated with or communicatively coupled with the second computing system.
However, in the same field of endeavor clinical decision support systems, Paisley teaches a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol, wherein the first computing system and the second computing system are disjunctive such that the first computing system is not configured to be integrated with or communicatively coupled with the second computing system (e.g., see [0005], [0006], [0059], [0061] wherein different hospitals/doctors may use clinical support systems developed by different vendors, wherein each system developed by different vendors will not function with one another. Paisley further teaches clinical support systems implemented by different vendors (i.e., disjunctive systems) utilizing different communication protocols to transmit and receive data).
Purusothaman teaches the patient identifiable information is stored as part of a private networked system, wherein at least Fig. 2 further illustrates the network as a cloud. As such, it would have at least been obvious to utilize a virtual private cloud to yield the predictable results of utilizing virtual network components thereby alleviating costs by centralizing infrastructure management and increasing scaling (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143). Nonetheless, Paisley additionally teaches a private cloud (e.g., see [0046], [0059], [0070], [0205] teaching a cloud-based system within an organizations private network).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Purusothaman in view of Paisley before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to enable health care providers to share their clinical support system data with other health care providers (e.g., see Abstract).
While Purusothaman and Paisley teach a cache memory and the storing of temporary data (e.g., see [0086] of Purusothaman and [0173] of Paisley), Purusothaman-Paisley fail to explicitly teach a data repository configured to be deleted and regenerated each time the diagnostic assistant tool is launched for a different patient. Notably, the claim language suggests or makes optional the data is deleted and regenerated each time the diagnostic assistant tool is launched for a different patient, but does not require the step to be performed.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of managing data, Grunwald teaches a data repository configured to be deleted and regenerated each time the diagnostic assistant tool is launched for a different patient (e.g., see [0105] wherein memory used for the temporary storage of patient data is cleared and reinitialized upon the device being used for a new patient).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Purusothaman-Paisley in view of Grunwald before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to reduce load and provide more efficient use of the memory resources.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman fails to teach wherein the first communication protocol is a first one of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) protocol and a Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Hooks protocol, wherein the second communication protocol is the other one of the FHIR protocol and the CDS Hooks protocol.
However, in the same field of endeavor clinical decision support systems, Paisley teaches wherein the first communication protocol is a first one of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) protocol and a Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Hooks protocol, wherein the second communication protocol is the other one of the FHIR protocol and the CDS Hooks protocol (e.g., see [0076] wherein the different communication protocols include Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) and Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Hooks).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Purusothaman in view of Paisley with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to enable health care providers to share their clinical support system data with other health care providers (e.g., see Abstract).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman further teaches wherein the identity information about the patient comprises personally identifiable information comprising at least one of a name of the patient, a date of birth of the patient, an address of the patient, an email of the patient, a telephone number of the patient, a passport number of the patient, a fingerprint of the patient, a driver license number of the patient, a credit card number of the patient, a debit card number of the patient, and a Social Security number of the patient, and wherein the contextual information about the medical professional includes at least one of a reason for the patient visiting the medical professional and a type of the medical professional (e.g., see Fig. 8, [0007], [0013], [0090] wherein the patient data includes name, gender, birthday, address, phone number, ID number, etc., and the physician information includes a reason for the patient visit and/or their specialty).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving first input including the identity information about the patient and the contextual information about the medical professional (e.g., see Figs. 7, 9-12, [0064], [0065] wherein a patient and/or physician based on their specialty may be selected);
receiving second input from the medical professional that indicates that the medical professional selected the diagnostic assistant tool (e.g., see [0007] wherein the diagnosis module can be utilized by one or more physicians); and
initializing, in response to receiving the second input, the diagnostic assistant tool (e.g., see [0007], [0062] wherein the diagnosis module can be utilized by one or more physicians).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving first input including the identity information about the patient and the contextual information about the medical professional (e.g., see Figs. 7, 9-12, [0064], [0065] wherein a patient and/or physician based on their specialty may be selected); and
automatically initializing, in response to receiving the first input, the diagnostic assistant tool (e.g., see [0007], [0062] wherein the diagnosis module can be utilized by one or more physicians dynamically or periodically).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman further teaches wherein the first computing system includes an electronic medical records system, wherein the second computing system includes a provider database associated with a provider of the diagnostic assistant tool, and wherein the first set of data and the second set of data at least partially overlap (e.g., see [0007], [0090] teaching an electronic medical record system and database for maintaining physician data, wherein at least some patients are associated with some physicians).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Purusothaman further teaches wherein the operation of providing the de-duplicated data comprises: generating, via the diagnostic assistant tool, a user interface (e.g., see Figs. 11, 14, 15, [0077] wherein the patient data is provided to the physician); and
providing the de-duplicated data about the patient via the user interface (e.g., see Figs. 11, 14, 15, [0077] wherein the patient data, which avoid duplication, is provided to the physician).
As to claims 8-14, the claims are directed to the method implemented on the system of claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 15-20, the claims are directed to the method implemented on the system of claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected. Claim 16 includes the limitations of claims 2 and 3 as a combination, but are nonetheless taught by Purusothaman as outline above.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights