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 1-30 have been canceled.
Claims 31-50 have been added new and are currently pending.
Detailed Action
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 31-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. US 12068073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: referring to MPEP 804 II.B.2. Anticipation Analysis, “The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.” Here, claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s) since the claims recite substantially similar limitations. Particularly, the entire scope of independent claims of Patent ‘073 falls within the scope of independent claims of the present application.
The following is a mapping of the claims of the Patent against the claims of the present application:
Present Application
Patent 12068073
Identified differences rationale as to why that does not amount to a patentable difference.
A system for credentialing and privileging of a healthcare practitioner, comprising: a server comprising at least one computing device, at least one module, at least one memory, and at least one input/output (I/O) interface; at least one client device; and at least one processor configured to: receive a form request from a healthcare practitioner, wherein the form request includes a request to receive a dynamic privilege form in one or more privilege categories for one or more facilities, wherein the dynamic privilege form is customizable; send a credential form including a plurality of prompts for the credentials of the healthcare practitioner; send the dynamic privilege form to the healthcare practitioner; receive the credential form including one or more credential responses to the plurality of prompts from the healthcare practitioner; and receive the dynamic privilege form from the healthcare practitioner, the dynamic privilege form including requested healthcare privileges from the one or more healthcare privileges and requested facilities from the one or more facilities.
A system for credentialing and privileging of a healthcare practitioner, comprising: a server comprising at least one computing device, at least one module, at least one memory, and at least one input/output (I/O) interface; at least one client device at least one processor, wherein the server, the at least one client device, and the at least one processor are configured for at least one of wired or wireless communication over a data network; and wherein the at least one memory is configured to store storing one or more non-transitory computer-executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor, in response to executing the one or more non- transitory computer-executable instructions, implements a method comprising: receiving a form request from a healthcare practitioner, wherein the form request includes a request to receive a dynamic privilege form in one or more privilege categories for one or more facilities; generating the dynamic privilege form based on the form request, the dynamic privilege form including one or more healthcare privileges and one or more facilities for selection by the healthcare practitioner; sending a credential form including a plurality of prompts for the credentials of the healthcare practitioner; sending the dynamic privilege form to the healthcare practitioner; receiving the credential form including one or more credential responses to the plurality of prompts from the healthcare practitioner; and receiving the dynamic privilege form from the healthcare practitioner, the dynamic privilege form including requested healthcare privileges from the one or more healthcare privileges and requested facilities from the one or more facilities; and wherein the at least one memory stores a plurality of privilege forms for the one or more privilege categories, and wherein the step of generating the dynamic privilege form includes generating the dynamic privilege form that is customizable based on modification of at least one of the plurality of privilege forms.
PNG
media_image1.png
944
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Present Application has no identified differences to the Patent ‘073
The remaining claims in this application are additionally anticipated by claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. US 12068073.
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 31-50 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.
Step 1:
Claims 31-50 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 31 send a credential form including a plurality of prompts for credentials of the healthcare practitioner; send the dynamic privilege form to the healthcare practitioner; receive the credential form including one or more credential responses; and receive the dynamic privilege form from the healthcare practitioner, the dynamic privilege form including requested healthcare privileges from the one or more healthcare privileges and requested facilities from the one or more facilities. Independent claim 49 teaches send a credential form including a plurality of prompts; send the dynamic privilege form; receive the credential form and the dynamic privilege form; compare current privilege data with clinical activity; and determine if the healthcare practitioner has provided healthcare services. Independent claim 50 teaches send a credential from including a plurality of prompts for the credentials of the healthcare practitioner; send the dynamic privilege form; receiving the dynamic privilege form; and analyze the credential form with modifications to the one or more credentials response.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a computing device, client device, processor, memory and an interface as seen in claim 31 and a neural network as seen In claim 50, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of sending a notification and a recommendation as seen in claims 49 and 50, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed sending limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
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).
Step 2B:
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 components 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 not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 38, where “The following describes further details of one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the system 100 may include the server 102. The server 102 may include one or more computing devices, such as application servers, database servers, other types of servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, mobile computing devices, or other types of electronic devices. A computing device may include one or more processors, memory, one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces, or other computer components. The server 102 may include one or more modules 104(1)-(3). As used herein, the term “module” may refer to a software implementation, hardware implementation, or a combination of both. The module 104(1)-(3) may include functionality that carries out steps, instructions, operations, or the like. The modules 104(1)-(3) may be implemented using program instructions, circuitry, or other implementation methods, as are described herein.”
Paragraph 55, where “[0055]In some embodiments, the system 100 may include one or more user devices 110(1)-(n). The one or more user devices 110(1)-(n) may include a personal computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, or other computing device. The one or more user devices 110(1)-(n) may include software, such as a software application (app), that may perform functionality, such as communicating with the server 102. In some embodiments, some of the functionality of the one or more modules 104(1)-(3) of the server 102 may be performed by the one or more user devices 110(1)-(n). The one or more user device 110(1)-(n) may send data to the server 102 and may receive data from the server 102. The one or more user devices 110(1)-(n) may include graphic user interfaces and other input devices and output devices. The one or more user devices 110(1)-(n) may display various representations of data based on the data received from the server 102 on output devices such as computer screens. The user device may receive user input via input devices (i.e., keyboards, microphones, etc.) and send data to the server 102 based on the user input. The user input may include input to configure the one or more modules 104(1)-(3) of the server 102.”
Paragraph 104, where “The method 1200 may include sending 1210 a notification 180 to the healthcare practitioner 106(1) that the credential responses 178 are less than the required qualifications 136 for the requested privileges 128 if the credential responses 178 are less than the required qualifications136.”
The claims recite the additional element of sending reformation and notifications, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity 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 claim(s) 32-48 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 limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s)31-35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 47, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 2011/0196695 A1) in view of Ankrom et al. (US 2024/0330508 A1).
In claim 31, a system for credentialing and privileging of a healthcare practitioner, comprising:
Ye teaches:
a server comprising at least one computing device, at least one module, at least one memory, and at least one input/output (I/O) interface (Para. 35 and Fig. 1);
at least one client device (Para. 35 wherein provider devices are taught); and
at least one processor configured to:
receive a form request from a healthcare practitioner, wherein the dynamic privilege form is customizable (Para. 50 wherein “retrieve and transmit dynamic peer reference questionnaires and/or forms that tailor to each type of provider and privilege being pursued. As networked users grow in size exponentially, identifying qualified peers and requesting them to go through structured peer referencing questionnaires to meet specific peer referencing standards may be substantially more straight forward than compared to existing processes”). ;
Ye does not explicitly teach however Ankrom teaches:
wherein the form request includes a request to receive a dynamic privilege form in one or more privilege categories for one or more facilities (Para. 171 wherein “ For example, the user can select the logical combination to efficiently share the two combined segments/categories via a dynamic portable access point (as described with respect to FIGS. 5A and 5D). The user can also select the logical combination to view the two combined segments/categories of the user's secure information (as described with respect to FIG. 5B)”.
Ye further teaches:
send the dynamic privilege form to the healthcare practitioner (Para. 33 wherein “The invited peer may accept the invitation, in which case he or she becomes a user of the system as a peer of the inviting user”);
receive the credential form including one or more credential responses to the plurality of prompts from the healthcare practitioner (Para. 33 wherein “The new user is then prompted to provide credential data, relationship data, and other types of data for determining his or her qualifications for providing a peer reference”); and
receive the dynamic privilege form from the healthcare practitioner, the dynamic privilege form including requested healthcare privileges from the one or more healthcare privileges and requested facilities from the one or more facilities (Para. 33 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the system and method for peer referencing in an online computer system as taught in Ye with manager for ingesting secure user information and permitting scope limited access as taught in Ankrom. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 predictable.
As per claim 32, Ye teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to:
generate the dynamic privilege form based on the form request, the dynamic privilege form including one or more healthcare privileges and one or more facilities for selection by the healthcare practitioner (Para. 70 wherein “In this regard, the online portal 100b may display an updated list of qualified peers for the particular provider, and the user may select a peer from the list to whom he or she wishes to send a request for peer referral”).
As per claim 33, Ye teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a plurality of privilege forms for the one or more privilege categories (Para. 72).
As per claim 34, Ye teaches the system of claim 33, wherein customization of the dynamic privilege form is based on modification of at least one of the plurality of privilege forms (Para. 50 wherein “According to one embodiment, the server may access the forms engine 100c to retrieve and transmit dynamic peer reference questionnaires and/or forms that tailor to each type of provider and privilege being pursued”, i.e. the forms are tailored/modified to the person).
As per claim 35, Ye teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the one or more privilege categories include at least one of: a specialty category; a care setting category; a practitioner category; and a procedure category (Para. 30 wherein “ obtaining of training, work history, specialty and other credentials data for use in determining, for example, qualification of the users for providing peer reference to other users.”).
As per claim 38, Ye teaches the system of claim 34, wherein the processor is configured to:
update the plurality of privilege forms (Para. 43); and
wherein the update is based on a change made to one or more of a federal law, a federal regulation, a state law, and a state regulation (Para. 29 wherein “ Prior art systems do not provide a mechanism for one provider to take advantage of loosely constructed social networks to automate the peer referencing process in a manner that satisfies those strict processes and regulations” and Para. 43 teaches that the rules can be updated).
As per claim 39, Ye teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the dynamic privilege form is substantially unchanged after the update (Para. 43).
As per claim 41, Ye system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to:
send the credential form with the one or more credential responses and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities to a reviewer (Para. 83 wherein “The form is then ready to be displayed on the provider device 102 for review by the provider. The provider may review and make any needed updates to the pre-populated information, and/or manually enter information for any fields that have not been automatically pre-populated”);
receive an information request from the reviewer (Para. 83); and
send the information request, the credential form with the one or more credential responses, and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities to the healthcare practitioner (Para. 50, 72, and 83).
As per claim 43, Ye system of claim 42, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive an information request from the administrator (Para. 59-60 and 83).; and
send the information request, the credential form with the one or more credential responses, and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities to the healthcare practitioner (Para. 59-60 and 83).
As per claim 47, Ye system of claim 31, wherein the one or more credential responses include one or more of an education response, a training response, a certification response, and a work experience response (Para. 5 and 30).
As per claim 48, Ye system of claim 31, wherein the form request includes a request to receive the dynamic privilege form for the one or more privilege categories at a single healthcare facility, a plurality of healthcare facilities within a single healthcare system, or a plurality of healthcare facilities across two or more healthcare systems (Para. 49).
Claim(s) 36-37, 40, 42, 45, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 2011/0196695 A1) in view of Ankrom et al. (US 2024/0330508 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Podobas et al. (US 2021/0366608 A1).
As per claim 36, Ye in view of Ankrom teach the system of claim 32. Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches, wherein the dynamic privilege form includes one or more medical codes associated with the one or more healthcare privileges (Para. 72 wherein “A requirement for many CPT and HCPCS procedure codes involving medical services in the form of evaluating digital health data or providing remote care services (such as telehealth) is that the clinician must spend some number of minutes at or exceeding a numeric threshold or between a minimum and maximum range of minutes”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the system and method for peer referencing in an online computer system as taught in Ye with manager for ingesting secure user information and permitting scope limited access as taught in Ankrom further with the medical codes that can be associated with certain privileged users as taught in Podobas. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 predictable.
As per claim 37, Ye in view of Ankrom teach the system of claim 32. Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches, system of claim 36, wherein the one or more medical codes include ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, or both (Para. 72). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 36.
As per claim 40, Ye in view of Ankrom teach the system of claim 32. Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches system of claim 38, wherein: the plurality of privilege forms are each associated with one or more medical codes (Para. 107 and 110).; and the update includes modification of the one or more medical codes associated with one or more of the plurality of privilege forms (Para. 107 and 110). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 36.
As per claim 42, Ye in view of Ankrom teach the system of claim 31. Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches, wherein the processor is configured to:
send the credential form with the one or more credential responses and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities to a reviewer (Para. 83);
Ye does not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches:
receive a privilege recommendation to either grant or deny one or more of the requested healthcare privileges at one or more of the requested facilities from the reviewer (Para. 101); and
Ye further teaches:
send the privilege recommendation, the credential form with the one or more credential responses, and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities to an administrator (Para. 59-60 and 83).
The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 36.
As per claim 45, Ye in view of Ankrom teach the system of claim 42. Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas taches, wherein the processor is configured to receive a privilege grant for one or more of the requested healthcare privileges at one or more of the requested healthcare facilities from the administrator (Para. 101 and 115). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 36.
Claim 50 recites substantially similar limitations as seen in claim 31 and hence is rejected for similar rationale as noted above. In addition, Claim 50 recites additional elements as seen below.
Ye further teaches:
analyze practitioner data, clinical activity data, the credential form with modifications to the one or more credential responses, and the dynamic privilege form with the requested healthcare privileges and the requested facilities (Para. 30 wherein “ obtaining of training, work history, specialty and other credentials data for use in determining, for example, qualification of the users for providing peer reference to other users.” Para. 50 teaches “In response to the request, the identified peers may submit a peer reference in a paper-based or electronic format. According to one embodiment, the server may access the forms engine 100c to retrieve and transmit dynamic peer reference questionnaires and/or forms that tailor to each type of provider and privilege being pursued”);
Ye does not explicitly teach however Ankrom teaches:
via a neural network (Para. 137 wherein machine learning models are taught) and
Ye and Ankrom do not explicitly teach however Podobas teaches:
send a recommendation to one or more users to grant or deny one or more of the requested healthcare privileges at one or more of the requested facilities to the healthcare practitioner based on the analysis (Para. 101).
The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 36.
Claim(s) 44 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 2011/0196695 A1) in view of Ankrom et al. (US 2024/0330508 A1) and Podobas et al. (US 2021/0366608 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Fathalla et al. (US 2025/0286716 A1).
As per claim 44, Ye in view of Ankrom and Podobas teach the system of claim 43. Ye, Ankrom and Podobas do not explicitly teach however Fathalla teach, wherein the processor is configured to receive a temporary privilege grant for one or more of the requested healthcare privileges at one or more of the requested facilities from the administrator (Fathalla, Para. 318 wherein a temporary data access is taught).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the system and method for peer referencing in an online computer system as taught in Ye; with manager for ingesting secure user information and permitting scope limited access as taught in Ankrom; further with the medical codes that can be associated with certain privileged users as taught in Podobas; further with the temporary access of information as taught in Fathalla. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in 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 predictable.
As per claim 46, Ye in view of Ankrom and Podobas teach the system of claim 43. Ye, Ankrom and Podobas do not explicitly teach however Fathalla teach system of claim 42, wherein the processor is configured to receive a privilege denial for one or more of the requested healthcare privileges at one or more of the requested healthcare facilities from the administrator (Fig. 15-16). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 42.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gunther (US 2023/0045774 A9) teaches system and method for managing transactions in dynamic digital documents. Ankrom et al. (US 2024/0330508 A1) teaches manager for ingesting secure user information and permitting cope limited access. The prior art fail to teach the limitations in claim 49 of compare current privilege data with clinical activity data; determine if the healthcare practitioner has provided healthcare services information regarding services the healthcare practitioner is not privileged to provide based on the comparison; and responsive to a determination that the healthcare practitioner has provided the information to the healthcare services, send a notification to one or more users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights