DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 are pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 7 were amended in the response filed 28 January 2026.
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 .
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 1-7 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 claim 1, the following limitation does not appear to be clearly described as claimed: “the database separate from the blockchain and configured to store the patient examination data, the patient examination data not being stored in any of the data blocks in the blockchain format” [see claim 1, lines 13-16].
The limitations of claim 7 parallel claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same
rationale. Claims 2-6 are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasambandam et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0170079 A1 in view of Ishikawa US Patent 11,705,228 B2, Nichols US Patent 7,039,810 B1 and McFarlane US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0027237 A1..
Regarding claim 1, Gnanasambandam et al. teaches the following:
A viewing procedure management system for managing a procedure for patient examination data to be viewable by a plurality of patient examination nodes as hardware, [note: Figure 33C, (3300) Network of Nodes with Access to Distributed Ledger, (3328) determine whether to perform operation (e.g., permit viewing of care plan), (3326) request to view ] the system comprising:
the plurality of patient examination nodes each configured to generate patient examination data based on an examination of a patient and store a plurality of data blocks in a blockchain format [note: figure 33C, Distributed Ledger implemented by Blockchain ]; and
an authentication node as hardware configured to generate the plurality of data blocks to be stored into the plurality of patient examination nodes [note: figure 33C, Authorization Information; paragraph 0067, blockchain is provided authentication information to implement functions ],
the plurality of patient examination nodes and the authentication node being connected through a communication line [note: paragraph 0363, communication ],
each of the plurality of patient examination nodes including
a data block storage configured to store the plurality of data blocks in the blockchain format [note: figure 33C ], and
an examination data output unit configured to output the generated patient examination data to a database connected to the patient examination node, the database separate from the blockchain and configured to store the patient examination data, the patient examination data not being stored in any of the data blocks in the blockchain format [note: figure 33C, (3332) transaction response, display; polarograph 0083 suggests data may be stored in database 122 or ledger 118; also see paragraphs 0387-0389 ],
the plurality of patient examination nodes as hardware including a patient examination node being a request node configured to request viewing of the patient examination data generated by another patient examination node of the plurality of patient examination nodes and a patient examination node being a generation node configured to generate target examination data being the patient examination data requested by the request node for viewing [note: paragraph 0051 ACL rights; paragraph 0054 permissions to view appropriate records based on rules; paragraph 0059, rules may be computer implemented instructions ],
the request node including a request message transmitter configured to generate and transmit a request message requesting viewing of the target examination data to the generation node, the request message being a message including predetermined signature data with a signature of a target patient relating to the target examination data or a message to which the signature data with the signature of the target patient relating to the target examination data is attached [note: paragraph 0330, if rules are satisfied then a request signature; paragraph 0333, means for performing an operation ],
the generation node including
a patient signature authenticator configured to authenticate, when receiving the request message, the signature of the target patient relating to the signature data received together with the request message [note: paragraphs 0305, 0308-0309, 0330, 0345 signature for viewing, viewing privileges of content ],
an identification information obtainer configured to obtain, when the signature of the target patient is authenticated, examination data identification information identifying the target examination data and request node identification information identifying the request node [note: paragraph 0354, signature ],
a permission message generator configured to generate a permission message requesting setting of a viewing right for the request node to view the target examination data, the permission message including the examination data identification information and the request node identification information, the permission message being a message including the signature data with the signature of the target patient and signature data with a signature of the generation node or a message to which the signature data with the signature of the target patient and the signature data with the signature of the generation node are attached [note: paragraph 0363, supports messages individual and broadcast; also see 0305, 0308-0309 and 0350 ], and
a permission message transmitter configured to transmit the permission message to the authentication node [note: paragraph 0363 message transmission; paragraph 0187 messages (804) ],
the authentication node including
a data block generator configured to generate a data block after receiving the permission message, the data block including the signature of the target patient and the signature of the generation node to set the viewing right of the target examination data to the request node [note: paragraph 0354, valid authorization ], and
a data block transmitter configured to transmit the generated data block to the plurality of patient examination nodes [note: figures 27, 29, 30, 32, 33A, 33C, and 34 ].
Although Gnanasambandam et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly disclose “request viewing of the patient examination data generated by another patient node”. They do teach implementing rules for viewing data, such as ACL rights. However, Ishikawa et al. further details this feature [note: column 5 line 60 through column 6 line 4, “the processor (120) receives the viewing request sent by the second user from Facility B2. The viewing request is a request for causing the cloud server (100) to allow the second user to view the patient information of a target patient.”; column 6 lines 51-67; also see column 6 lines 5-67 predefined conditions] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since they are both directed toward privileged access to patient data. Ishikawa further details protocol inferred within Gnanasambandam et al..
Although Gnanasambandam et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly use the term “attached”; they do however teach means for adding (i.e. attaching) signatures to the distributed ledger [see: paragraph 0305]. Nichols further describes attaching a signature to a message communication to verify the signature [note: column 4 lines 34-62]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since all references are directed toward protecting the integrity of the data being transmitted and further adds detail to the transmission process of Gnanasambandam et al.
Although Gnanasambandam et al., Ishikawa, and Nicholas teach the invention substantially as cited above, they do not explicitly disclose the amended added feature,
“the database separate from the blockchain and configured to store the patient examination data, the patient examination data not being stored in any of the data blocks in the blockchain format”; however McFarlane further details this element [note: Abstract, “in response to detecting an event indicating that a transaction was successfully processed by the respective contract, transact protected health information in a data store separate from the blockchain.”; paragraph 0015, “the private blockchain nodes may also include specialized modules such as forwarder for events on the blockchain corresponding to transactions involving sensitivity health information …may interface with a secure HIPPA compliant database to store and retrieve PHI. The secure database may be implemented using a distributed file system. In this manner, sensitive PHI information is securely stored in a separate database rather than being directly stored and potentially exposed on the blockchain itself (i.e. information may be stored separately than on the blockchain).].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing data to have combined the cited references since they are all directed toward optimized storage of private data. McFarlane further expands on the capabilities of Gnanasambandam et al. [paragraph 0083, means for separate storage options].
Claim 2: The viewing procedure management system according to claim 1, wherein
the authentication node includes a generation node signature authenticator configured to receive the permission message and to authenticate the signature of the generation node, and the data block generator generates the data block when the signature of the generation node is authenticated [note: Gnanasambandam et al., paragraph 0054; paragraph 0330, signature; figure 27 ].
Claim 3: The viewing procedure management system according to claim 1, wherein
the permission message includes the signature data with the signature of the target patient and the signature data with the signature of the generation node, and the signature data with the signature of the target patient and the signature data with the signature of the generation node are included in a single piece of signature data [note: Gnanasambandam et al., figure 27 and 33C ]..
Claim 4: The viewing procedure management system according to claim 1, wherein
the permission message is a message to which the signature data with the signature of the target patient and the signature data with the signature of the generation node are attached, and the signature data with the signature of the target patient and the signature data with the signature of the generation node are included in a single piece of signature data [note: Gnanasambandam et al., figure 27; paragrapgh0302, 0305, 0308-0309, 0352 ].
Claim 5: The viewing procedure management system according to claim 1, wherein
the data block generator in the authentication node generates a data block including a viewing expiration date of the target examination data [note: Gnanasambandam et al., paragraph 0065 creation date and required update (i.e. expire) ].
Claim 6: The viewing procedure management system according to claim 5, wherein
the request message transmitter in the request node transmits the request message including the viewing expiration date obtained from the target patient, the permission message generator in the generation node generates the permission message including the viewing expiration date, and the data block generator in the authentication node generates the data block using the viewing expiration date read from the permission message [note Gnanasambandam et al.,: paragraph 0065 timestamps; paragraph 0363 transmission ].
The limitation of claim 7 parallels claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the current rejection.
Note newly cited reference teach the amended feature “the database separate from the blockchain and configured to store the patient examination data, the patient examination data not being stored in any of the data blocks in the blockchain format “.. Note McFarlane, paragraph 0015, “the private blockchain nodes may also include specialized modules such as forwarder for events on the blockchain corresponding to transactions involving sensitivity health information …may interface with a secure HIPPA compliant database to store and retrieve PHI. The secure database may be implemented using a distributed file system. In this manner, sensitive PHI information is securely stored in a separate database rather than being directly stored and potentially exposed on the blockchain itself (i.e. information may be stored separately than on the blockchain). Also see, Gnanasambandam et al. paragraph 0083 and paragraph 0387-0389 “may be stored in another data structure”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163