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
Claims 1-2 are pending. Claims 1-2 has been examined.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 03/25/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claim 1 is directed to a system (‘machine), and claim 2 is directed to a mobile computing device (‘machine’). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of processing healthcare record access. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
a network server;
a mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured for wireless communications; and
a processing circuit configured to:
authenticate an identification of a user of the mobile computing device; and
communicate an electronic authorization from the mobile computing device to a provider device using a first communication channel,
wherein the electronic authorization provides the provider device with access to electronic healthcare records stored in a container on the network server owned by the user,
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,
wherein the second communication channel comprises a wide area network that is configured to provide access to the container on the network server,
wherein the electronic healthcare records of the user are encrypted and deposited in the container, and
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server after a first retrieval of the electronic healthcare records of the user from the container.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of authenticating a user identity, providing an authorization from the user to a service provider to access healthcare records of the user, which is a commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a network server,” “a mobile device,” “the mobile device is configured for wireless communication,” “a processing circuit configured to,” “a provider device,” “a first communication channel,” “a container,” “a second communication channel comprising a wide area network that is configured to,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does the claim effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 2
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of processing healthcare record access. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite:
a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals and configured to wireless communication over a wireless communication network;
an optical interface configured to establish an optical 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; and
a processing circuit that includes a processor that is configured to:
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 a network server; and
communicate the electronic authorization from the mobile computing device over the optical communication channel to the provider device,
the electronic authorization enabling the provider device to access the electronic healthcare records stored in the container through the first wireless communication network,
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server after a first retrieval of the electronic healthcare records of the user from the container.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process of authenticating a user identity, providing an authorization from the user to a service provider to access healthcare records of the user, which is a commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals and configured to wireless communication over a wireless communication network”, “an optical interface configured to establish an optical communication channel”, “the mobile device”, “a proximately located provider device”, “a processing circuit that includes a processor that is configured to”, “a container”, “a network server,” “the first wireless communication network”, merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does the claim effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
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.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 2 recites “communicate…through the first wireless communication network.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, “the first wireless communication network.”
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. (US 2010/0250271A1 (“Pearce”)) in 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 electronic authorization provides the provider device with access to electronic healthcare records stored in a 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 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server after a first retrieval of the 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 after a first retrieval of the 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)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. (US 2010/0250271A1 (“Pearce”)) in view of VOUTILAINEN et al. (US 2014/0086586A1 (“VOUTILAINEN”)) in further view of Steinberg, J. (US 2012/0136678A1 (“Steinberg”)) and.
Per Claim 2: Pearce discloses a mobile computing device comprising: (Fig. 2, item 251; ¶47)
a [component] configured to wireless communication over a wireless communication network; (¶47)
an [] 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; and (Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 127, 139)
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 a 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; and (Fig. 9; ¶¶14, 127, 139). Pearce does not explicitly teach a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals and an optical interface for optical communication.
VOUTILAINEN discloses components of mobile devices including a transceiver adapted to transmit and receive radio signals and configured to wireless communication over a wireless communication network (Fig. 7A; ¶¶147, 193); and an optical interface configured to establish an optical communication channel for communication between devices (Fig. 7A; ¶¶9, 82-83, 88).
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 to incorporate the teachings of wireless communication and optical communication capabilities of mobile device, as disclosed in VOUTILAINEN, to improve transmission efficiency (VOUTILAINEN: ¶157)
Pearce does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the electronic healthcare records deposited in the container are deleted by the network server after a first retrieval of the 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 after a first retrieval of the 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 VOUTILAINEN 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 a 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 after a first retrieval of the electronic healthcare records of the user from the container”, does not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the recited system structurally or functionally.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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