DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the request for continued examination filed on March 24, 2026. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1 and 18 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues previously cited Cordonnier fails to teach the newly added limitations of “transmit the metadata and the confirmed second medical information that includes provider-supplied edits to a second care provider”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cordonnier teaches a non-fungible token system/method for storing and accessing healthcare data wherein the system can receive and store patient healthcare data received from a plurality of sources, including the patient and their healthcare providers. The healthcare data can be newly added/edited/updated/modified by the user and/or other healthcare providers and transmitted to the user and/or other healthcare providers (e.g., see [0016], [0046], [0076], [0111], [0113]).
Accordingly, the previous art rejection is maintained.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 12-16, 18-20, 22, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess et al. (USPPN: 2020/0066392; hereinafter Bess) in further view of Cordonnier et al. (USPPN: 2023/0268040; hereinafter Cordonnier).
As to claim 1, Bess teaches An electronic medical records (EMR) system (e.g., see Abstract), comprising:
a server (e.g., see [0004]) configured to:
receive first medical information from a first care provider (e.g., see [0043], [0058] wherein a medical provider provides patient information into the system);
generate second medical information that includes medical data, automatically with an artificial intelligence (AI) engine based on the first medical information, the AI engine including an AI model trained to convert the first medical information into the second medical information (e.g., see [0049]-[0050], [0059], [0060], [0093], [0178] wherein the information is parsed and transformed to a second format using machine learning algorithms, for example, medical data such as high temperature/blood pressure, etc. can be transformed into a standardized data format);
transmit the generated second medical information to the first care provider (e.g., see [0090], [0091], [0112] wherein the converted data is output for a user to review/confirm);
receive confirmation of the generated second medical information from the first care provider, wherein the received confirmation comprises confirmed second medical information that includes provider-supplied edits to the second medical information (e.g., see [0095], [0113] wherein the converted data is confirmed by the user, wherein the confirmation can further include input indicating changes are needed (i.e., provider-supplied edits) to the patient medical records);
and transmit the confirmed second medical information to a second care provider (e.g., see [0040], [0041], [0063], [0119] wherein the translated patient data can be sent to other medical practices).
While Bess teaches converting medical information from one format to another, Bess fails to teach generate metadata from the confirmed second medical information; and transmit the metadata and the confirmed second medical information that includes the provider-supplied edits to a second care provider.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches generate metadata from the confirmed second medical information (e.g., see [0029], [0102] wherein patient healthcare data can have digital keys such that transactions of the healthcare data can be captured, tracked, and/or authenticated); and transmit the metadata and the confirmed second medical information that includes the provider-supplied edits to a second care provider (e.g., see [0016], [0029], [0032], [0046], [0049], [0076], [0107], [0111], [0113] wherein the digital key for accessing the patient data is provided to healthcare providers, wherein the patient data can include new/updated healthcare data provided by the patient and/or healthcare providers and displayed on the client device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein receiving the first medical information from the first care provider further comprises: receiving the first medical information from an external EMR system of the first care provider in a first format conforming to the external EMR system, wherein the second medical information conforms to a second format of the EMR system (e.g., see [0043], [0044], [0052] wherein the formats can be different and from different EMR systems).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein the first medical information from the first care provider relates to a patient remote from a medical facility of the second care provider, and wherein the first care provider obtains the first medical information from the patient remote from the medical facility of the second care provider (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0052] wherein the patient, medical providers, and EMR data can be remote from one another communicating over a network).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein the server is configured to generate the second medical information such that the second medical information complies with a particular standard, and wherein the first medical information does not comply with the particular standard (e.g., see [0043], [0044], [0058] wherein the patient medical information can be in different formats, including a non-standard format).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein the first medical information from the first care provider relates to a patient at a medical facility and the second medical information is supplied to the second care provider that is remote from the medical facility (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0040], [0052] wherein the medical information can include patient data during their appointment (i.e., patient at a medical facility) and the converted data can be remote from one another medical facility).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches the server further configured to: generate, via the AI engine, one or more billing statements based on the first medical information and the second medical information; generate one or more formatted files from the one or more billing statements; import the one or more formatted files or the one or more billing statements into an accounting component of the server associated with the second care provider (e.g., see [0137] of Bess wherein the data can include data for patient and insurance billing).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein the first care provider and the second care provider use the same medical record number for the common patient (e.g., see Fig. 6, [0067] wherein the different formats identify a patient using patient identification).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach the server further configured to: store the first medical information and the second medical information in at least one distributed ledger.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches store the first medical information and the second medical information in at least one distributed ledger (e.g., see [0015], [0102] teaching the use of a distributed ledger for storing medical data)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach the server further configured to: verify a data integrity of the first medical information received from an external EMR system of the first care provider based on a distributed ledger.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches verify a data integrity of the first medical information received from an external EMR system of the first care provider based on a distributed ledger (e.g., see [0015], [0102] teaching the use of a distributed ledger for verifying the integrity of the data)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach the server further configured to: record an immutable chain connecting the first medical information, the generated second medical information, the confirmed second medical information, and the metadata for a patient in a blockchain of a distributed ledger.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches record an immutable chain connecting the first medical information, the generated second medical information, the confirmed second medical information, and the metadata for a patient in a blockchain of a distributed ledger. (e.g., see [0015], [0020], [0049], [0102] teaching updating blockchain of patient data including any access, transmitting, and receiving of the data)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach wherein generating the second medical information further comprises: add, automatically, the generated second medical information to an immutable chain corresponding to a patient in a distributed ledger.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches add, automatically, the generated second medical information to an immutable chain corresponding to a patient in a distributed ledger (e.g., see [0015], [0020], [0049], [0102] teaching updating blockchain of patient data updating including any access, transmitting, and receiving of the data)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach the server further configured to: store one or more first blockchains corresponding to one or more patients, a second blockchain corresponding to the first care provider, and a third blockchain corresponding to the second care provider; provide inter-blockchain communication between the one or more first blockchains, the second blockchain, and the third blockchain; restrict an access for the patient, the first care provider, or the second care provider to the one or more first blockchains, the second blockchain, and the third blockchain based on a role-based access control of a distributed ledger; and verify identities of users of the EMR system for role-based access control via a decentralized identity management process.
However, in the same field of endeavor of transmitting electronic medical records, Cordonnier teaches store one or more first blockchains corresponding to one or more patients, a second blockchain corresponding to the first care provider, and a third blockchain corresponding to the second care provider; provide inter-blockchain communication between the one or more first blockchains, the second blockchain, and the third blockchain; restrict an access for the patient, the first care provider, or the second care provider to the one or more first blockchains, the second blockchain, and the third blockchain based on a role-based access control of a distributed ledger; and verify identities of users of the EMR system for role-based access control via a decentralized identity management process (e.g., see [0021], [0031], [0049], [0095] wherein patient data can be distributed among multiple blockchains by multiple medical providers wherein access to the blockchain can be restricted to particular kinds of medical providers wherein authorized users are verified).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess in view of Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to store, manage, and access healthcare data in a secure manner (e.g., see [0003] of Cordonnier).
As to claims 18, 19, 22, 25-29, the claims are directed to the methods implemented on the system of claims 1, 2, 7, and 12-16 and are similarly rejected.
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Bess further teaches receiving the first medical information from the first care provider in a first format conforming to the EMR system, wherein the second medical information is converted to conform to an external EMR system of the second care provider in a second format (e.g., see [0043], [0044], [0052] wherein the formats can be different and from different EMR systems).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess and Cordonnier, as applied above, and in further view of Harber et al. (USPPN: 2016/0070863; hereinafter Harber)
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. While Bess teaches the medical information can including admit, discharge, and transfer messages, Bess fails to teach the server further configured to: display a virtual bed of a patient remote from a medical facility of the second care provider, the second medical information being associated with the virtual bed on the server.
However, in the same field of endeavor healthcare management, Harber teaches display a virtual bed of a patient remote from a medical facility of the second care provider, the second medical information being associated with the virtual bed on the server (e.g., see Abstract, Figs. 2, 3, [0033], [0054] wherein medical information can include a request for admission and displaying patient admission status (i.e., virtual bed)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess-Cordonnier in view of Harber with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to facilitate better health care for patients (e.g., see [0003] of Harber).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess further teaches wherein the first care provider obtains the first medical information at a location of the common patient, and wherein the common patient is not co-located with the first care provider or the second care provider (Notably, the precise location of the patient, provider or second provider being located and/or not co-located with one another is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive language as they are not functionally required in the claimed system. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed system would be performed the same regardless of whether the patient is located at the first care provider or not. Therefore, Bess, having taught the patient data being communicated via medical devices and can therefore be remote from physical locations, therefore, teach the claimed limitation).
Bess-Cordonnier fail to teach wherein the first medical information corresponds to a patient that is simultaneously a common patient of the first care provider and the second care provider, wherein the patient is recorded as a virtual bed for the second care provider, wherein the first care provider obtains the first medical information at a location of the common patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor healthcare management, Harber teaches wherein the first medical information corresponds to a patient that is simultaneously a common patient of the first care provider and the second care provider, wherein the patient is recorded as a virtual bed for the second care provider (e.g., see Abstract, Figs. 2, 3, [0004], [0033], [0054] wherein medical information can include a request for admission and displaying patient admission status (i.e., virtual bed) of a clinician’s patient to be admitted to a healthcare facility (i.e., common patient)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess-Cordonnier in view of Harber with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to facilitate better health care for patients (e.g., see [0003] of Harber).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess teaches record a care action of the first care provider as a medical record for a patient of a virtual bed of the second care provider (e.g., see [0125] wherein patient data can include admit, discharge, or transfer information (i.e., virtual bed)).
As to claims 21 and 23, the claims are directed to the methods implemented on the system of claims 8 and 10 and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess and Cordonnier, as applied above, and in further view of Kaboff et al. (USPPN: 2010/0198608; hereinafter Kaboff)
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess teaches record each care action of the first care provider for each of the plurality of patients as a medical record for each of the plurality of patients at a corresponding virtual bed of the second care provider (e.g., see [0125] wherein patient data can include admit, discharge, or transfer information (i.e., virtual bed)).
Bess fails to teach generate a schedule for the first care provider, via the AI engine, that allocates, to the first care provider, a plurality of patients at a plurality of locations remote from the second care provider; generate, via the AI engine, a route for the first care provider, the route connecting the plurality of locations of the plurality of patients allocated to the first care provider
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient management, Kaboff teaches generate a schedule for the first care provider that allocates, to the first care provider, a plurality of patients at a plurality of locations remote from the second care provider (e.g., see [0071] wherein a schedule is generated for the healthcare provider for visiting a plurality of remote patients); generate a route for the first care provider, the route connecting the plurality of locations of the plurality of patients allocated to the first care provider (e.g., see [0030] teaching generating an optimized route to visit each patient).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess-Cordonnier in view of Kaboff with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to facilitate better health care for patients (e.g., see [0003] of Kaboff). While Kaboff fails to teach the generating of the schedule and route via an AI engine, Bess and Cordonnier both teach the use of AI techniques for performing a plurality of simulation aspects of human intelligence such as reasoning, planning, problem-solving, decision making, etc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the generic processor taught in Kaboff with an AI engine as taught in Bess and Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitution of one known type of processing for another to yield the predictable results to simulate aspects of human intelligence such as reasoning, planning, problem-solving, decision making, etc. (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143)
Claim(s) 17 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess and Cordonnier, as applied above, and in further view of Feldman et al. (USPPN: 2016/0259902; hereinafter Feldman)
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bess fails to teach determine, via the AI engine, whether a patient is a candidate for admission or discharge based on the first medical information and the second medical information; and transmit an admission or discharge score to a clinician in response to the determination of whether a patient is a candidate for admission or discharge, wherein a discharged patient is transferred from the first care provider to the second care provider or to a virtual bed or to a hospital at home program.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient healthcare management, Feldman teaches determine, via the AI engine, whether a patient is a candidate for admission or discharge based on the first medical information and the second medical information; and transmit an admission or discharge score to a clinician in response to the determination of whether a patient is a candidate for admission or discharge, wherein a discharged patient is transferred from the first care provider to the second care provider or to a virtual bed or to a hospital at home program (e.g., see Fig. 16, [0077], [0088], [0110], [0114], [0118] teaching identifying whether a patient is a candidate for admission or discharge based on the collected patient data and further providing a ranking or score to the healthcare professional. Notably, the claim limitation of “wherein a discharged patient is transferred from the first care provider to the second care provider or to a virtual bed or to a hospital at home program” is interpreted as an intended result statement. Applicant is remined that, typically, no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim. An intended result is a description of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (See MPEP 2111.05). Accordingly, Feldman having taught determining whether to discharge a patient, then it meets the claimed limitation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Bess-Cordonnier in view of Feldman with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to facilitate better health care for patients (e.g., see [0003]-[0004] of Feldman). While Feldman fails to teach the determining via an AI engine, Bess and Cordonnier both teach the use of AI techniques for performing a plurality of simulation aspects of human intelligence such as reasoning, planning, problem-solving, decision making, etc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the generic processor taught in Feldman with an AI engine as taught in Bess and Cordonnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitution of one known type of processing for another to yield the predictable results to simulate aspects of human intelligence such as reasoning, planning, problem-solving, decision making, etc. (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143).
As to claim 30, the claim is directed to the method implemented on the system of claim 17 and is similarly rejected.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights