DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Amendments filed on 05/04/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 2 are amended and new claims 3-10 are added.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 has been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant' s amendments to claim 2 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant' s amendments to claims 1 and 2 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant contends that Pearce does not disclose an optical channel that delivers both a container address on a network and a cryptographic key for decrypting records, while encrypted records flow on a separate WAN channel. Examiner notes that, however, Pearse (US 3020/0350271A1) teaches an optical channel established by the mobile computing device displaying an encoded optical image that is captured by a camera of the provider device (Fig. 9, items 920/940; ¶127), and the encoded optical image including an address of a container on the network server and other information (¶¶14, 103, 117, 127). PANDIARAJAN (US 2015/0178721A1) discloses one or more cryptographic keys included in an encoded optical image for data decryption (¶¶64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the encoded optical image of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of including one or more cryptographic keys in the encoded optical image for data decryption, as disclosed in PANDIARAJAN, in order to ensure security communication (PANDIARAJAN: ¶19).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
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.
Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 2 is directed to a mobile device. The amended limitations, “the optical interface comprising a display…” recited in claim 2 and “wherein the optical interface is further configured to display the encoded optical image…” do not have written description in applicant’s specification. The specification discloses the client device 422 (‘mobile device’) may be configured to present an optical image on a display. (see paragraph [0062] of PGPub US 20240387011A1). However, the specification does not disclose the optical interface comprising a display. Therefore, the claim is unclear because the claimed limitations, “the optical interface comprising a display…”, is not in line with the specification.
Claims 7-10 are also rejected as each depends on claim 2.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. (US 2010/0250271A1 (“Pearce”)) in view of PANDIARAJAN et al. (US 2015/0178721A1 (“PANDIARAJAN”)) in further view of Steinberg , J. (US 2012/0136678A1 (“Steinberg”)).
Per Claim 1: Pearce discloses a system comprising: (Fig. 2; abstract)
a network server; (Fig. 2; ¶47)
a mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured for wireless communications; and (Fig. 2, item 251; ¶47)
a processing circuit configured to: (¶177)
authenticate an identification of a user of the mobile computing device; and (Fig. 8, Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 40, 127, 139)
communicate an electronic authorization from the mobile computing device to a provider device using a first communication channel, (Fig. 8, Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 127, 139)
wherein the first communication channel comprises an optical channel established by the mobile computing device displaying an encoded optical image that is captured by a camera of the provider device (Fig. 9, items 920/940; ¶127), the encoded optical image including an address of a container on the network server in which encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user are deposited and [other information], (Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 103, 117, 127)
wherein the electronic authorization provides the provider device with access to electronic healthcare records stored in the container on the network server owned by the user, (¶¶14, 135-136)
wherein the access to the electronic healthcare records of the user is provided through a second communication channel that is different from the first communication channel, (Fig. 9; ¶¶127, 139)
wherein the second communication channel comprises a wide area network that is configured to provide access to the container on the network server, (Fig. 9; ¶¶127, 176)
wherein the electronic healthcare records of the user are encrypted…and deposited in the container, and (Fig. 9; ¶¶127, 147)…
Pearce discloses the encoded optical image including an address of a container on the network server in which encrypted electronic healthcare records of a user are deposited and other information (¶¶14, 103, 117, 127). Pearce does not explicitly teach one or more cryptographic keys for decrypting the encrypted data included in the encoded optical image.
PANDIARAJAN discloses one or more cryptographic keys included in an encoded optical image for data decryption (¶¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the encoded optical image of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of including one or more cryptographic keys in the encoded optical image for data decryption, as disclosed in PANDIARAJAN, in order to ensure security communication (PANDIARAJAN: ¶19).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server in response to a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container…
Steinberg discloses:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server in response to a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container… (¶¶7, 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of deletion of healthcare records, as disclosed in Steinberg, to improve security and privacy of medical information (Steinberg: ¶4)
Furthermore, the expression of “…in response to a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container by the provider device through the wireless communication network, such that the container is rendered inaccessible for any subsequent retrieval of the records by any device”, does not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the claimed system structurally or functionally.
Per Claim 3: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore,
Pearce discloses:
wherein the encoded optical image comprises a quick response code or a barcode. (Fig. 8; ¶127)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2009/0080142A1 (“Morita”)).
Per Claim 4: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the processing circuit configured to perform functions (¶177).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose a function to authenticate the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement.
Morita discloses a function of authenticating the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement. (Fig. 9; ¶¶23, 56; claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg to incorporate the teachings of authenticating the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement, as disclosed in Morita, to protect privacy of the patient (Morita: ¶¶24).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg as applied to claim 1 further in view of Postrel, R. (US 2006/0064320A1 (“Postrel”)).
Per Claim 5: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the processing circuit configured to retrieve the electronic healthcare records of the user(¶177).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose maintaining a log that records, for the container, a description of the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container, an identity of the user, an identity of the provider device that retrieved the electronic healthcare records or a time of the first retrieval.
Postrel discloses maintaining a log that records, for the container, a description of the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container, an identity of the user, an identity of the provider device that retrieved the electronic healthcare records or a time of the first retrieval. (Fig. 2; ¶¶52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of a centralized management and monitoring of healthcare services with features of maintaining a transaction log, as disclosed in Postrel, in order to provide secure access of patient records. (Postrel: ¶¶10)
Per Claim 6: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the processing circuit configured to retrieve the electronic healthcare records of the user(¶177).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose retrieving the electronic healthcare records of the user from a plurality of electronic healthcare records sources prior to the records being deposited in the container, the plurality of electronic healthcare records sources comprising a healthcare provider system, an insurer system or a government system.
Postrel discloses retrieving the electronic healthcare records of the user from a plurality of electronic healthcare records sources prior to the records being deposited in the container, the plurality of electronic healthcare records sources comprising a healthcare provider system, an insurer system or a government system (Fig. 2; ¶¶52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of a centralized management and monitoring of healthcare services with features of retrieving the electronic healthcare records of the user from a plurality of electronic healthcare records, as disclosed in Postrel, in order to provide secure access of patient records. (Postrel: ¶¶10)
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of in further view of Steinberg.
Per Claim 2: Pearce discloses a mobile computing device comprising: (Fig. 2, item 251; ¶47)
a [component] configured to communicate over a wireless communication network; (¶47)
an [mobile device] interface configured to establish an [] communication channel for communicating an electronic authorization from the mobile computing device to a proximately located provider device that is associated with a healthcare provider, wherein the [mobile device] interface comprising display configured to display an encoded optical image that includes an address of a container on a network server and [other information]; (Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 103, 117, 127)
a processing circuit that includes a processor that is configured to: (¶177)
identify and authenticate a user of the mobile computing device as an owner of encrypted electronic healthcare records stored in a container that is accessible through the network server; and (Fig. 8, Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 40, 127, 139)
communicate the electronic authorization from the mobile computing device over the optical communication channel to the provider device (Fig. 8, Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 127, 139), the electronic authorization enabling the provider device to access the electronic healthcare records stored in the container through the first wireless communication network, (¶¶14, 135-136, 139)…
Pearce discloses a mobile device (Fig. 2, item 251; ¶47) and component configured to wireless communication over a wireless communication network (¶47) as well as an interface configured to establish communication channel for communicating an electronic authorization from the mobile computing device to a proximately located provider device that is associated with a healthcare provider (Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 127, 139), as well as the mobile device comprises display configured to display an encoded optical image that includes an address of a container on a network server in which encrypted electronic healthcare records of a user are deposited and other information (¶¶14, 103, 117, 127). Pearce does not explicitly teach the mobile device comprising a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals, nor does Pearce disclose an optical interface as mobile device display configured to display an encoded optical image including one or more cryptographic keys for decrypting the encrypted data.
PANDIARAJAN discloses a mobile device comprising a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals and configured to communicate over a wireless communication network (Fig. 5; ¶¶69), an optical interface and the optical interface comprising a display configured to display an encoded optical image (Fig. 5; ¶¶3, 70-71), as well as the encoded optical image including one or more cryptographic keys for data decryption (¶¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the mobile device interface configured to communicate an encoded optical image on a display of the mobile device, as taught by Pearce, with mobile device transceiver, optical interface comprising display configured to display an encoded optical image, as disclosed in PANDIARAJAN, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predicable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearce, to include the teachings of PANDIARAJAN, in order to ensure security communication (PANDIARAJAN: ¶19).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server in response to a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container by the provider device through the wireless communication network, such that the container is rendered inaccessible for any subsequent retrieval of the records by any device.
Steinberg discloses:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server in response a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container. (¶¶7, 24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN to incorporate the teachings of deletion of healthcare records, as disclosed in Steinberg, to improve security and privacy of medical information (Steinberg: ¶4)
Additionally, the language, “…a container that is accessible through the network server…” recites the intended use of a container. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP §2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 IC).
Furthermore, the expression of “wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server in response to a first retrieval of the encrypted electronic healthcare records of the user from the container by the provider device through the wireless communication network, such that the container is rendered inaccessible for any subsequent retrieval of the records by any device”, does not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the claimed mobile device structurally or functionally.
Per Claim 7: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Pearce discloses:
wherein the encoded optical image comprises a quick response code or a barcode. (Fig. 8; ¶127)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Morita.
Per Claim 8: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the processing circuit configured to perform functions (¶177).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose a function to authenticate the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement.
Morita discloses a function of authenticating the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement. (Fig. 9; ¶¶23, 56; claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg to incorporate the teachings of authenticating the user of the mobile computing device using a biometric measurement, as disclosed in Morita, to protect privacy of the patient (Morita: ¶¶24).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Soundarajan, R. (US 2014/0340081A1 (“Soundarajan”)).
Per Claim 8: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the optical interface (‘display’) is further configurated to display the encoded optical image on a [] screen of the mobile computing device for capture by an authenticated provider device of a first responder, without requiring user-initiated authentication on the mobile computing device (Fig. 9; ¶¶9, 127).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose that the encoded optical image being displayed on a screen of the mobile computing device is a lock screen.
Soundarajan discloses a lock screen of the mobile device being used to display the encoded optical image. (Fig. 3; ¶34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the mobile device interface configured to communicate an encoded optical image on a display of the mobile device, as taught by Pearce, a lock screen of the mobile device being used to display the encoded optical image, as disclosed in Soundarajan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predicable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearce, to include the teachings of Soundarajan, in order to allow conduction transaction without unlocking a mobile device (Soundarajan: ¶2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg as applied to claim 2 further in view of Postrel.
Per Claim 10: Pearce in view of PANDIARAJAN and Steinberg discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Pearce discloses the processing circuit configured to retrieve the electronic healthcare records of the user(¶177).
Pearce does not explicitly disclose maintaining a log that records, for the container, a description of the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container, an identity of the user, an identity of the provider device that retrieved the electronic healthcare records or a time of the first retrieval.
Postrel discloses maintaining a log that records, for the container, a description of the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container, an identity of the user, an identity of the provider device that retrieved the electronic healthcare records or a time of the first retrieval. (Fig. 2; ¶¶52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pearce to incorporate the teachings of a centralized management and monitoring of healthcare services with features of maintaining a transaction log, as disclosed in Postrel, in order to provide secure access of patient records. (Postrel: ¶¶10)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VOUTILAINEN (US 2014/0086586A1) teaches wireless optical link.
Myers (US 2008/0046292A1) teaches a platform for interoperable healthcare data exchange.
Raggousis (US 2011/0282688A1) teaches electronic medical record distribution, systems and methods
Ramaci (US 2013/0307670A1) teaches a system for implementing biometric authentication.
Bauer (US 2010/0274589A1) teaches a method for outputting medical document on a terminal device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights