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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 03/25/2026. Claims 1, 14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 have been presented for examination.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/419,500 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 1-14 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 14 is drawn to a processor-readable storage medium comprising code which, for purposes of compact prosecution, is presumed to be within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 14) recites…obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme; providing a first cryptographic key…after receiving a request…for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information; encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture…; responsive to a request…, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information…, wherein the second medical information is provided…after…[capturing] the optical code and [using] the first cryptographic key extracted from the optical code to decrypt the first medical information.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuit” (claim 14), the claim encompasses rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., a healthcare informatics system; a patient device; a clinician device). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., A processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit; a healthcare informatics system; a patient device; a clinician device). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0027-0032; ¶ 0165-0169), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a healthcare informatics system” only invokes the healthcare informatics system merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a patient device” and “a clinician device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having a processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a healthcare informatics system” only invokes the healthcare informatics system merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a patient device” and “a clinician device” only invokes the devices merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-13 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-13 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
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.
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 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 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) 1-9, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton").
Regarding (currently amended) claim 1, Hill teaches a method for exchanging healthcare information, comprising:
using a healthcare informatics system to obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme (Hill: figure 7k, i.e., “Summary Screen” includes “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.”; ¶ 0061, i.e., “FIGS. 7A-7N show various examples of user interfaces 131 of the client application 130 used to perform an ingestion process by prompting the user with various types of user input”; ¶ 0072);
providing a first cryptographic key to a patient device after receiving a request from the patient device for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information (Hill: ¶ 0060, i.e., “the key management service 115 manages the storage and transmission of the IV to the client devices 106…along with the cryptographic key 121”; ¶ 0079, i.e., “a user of the client application 130 can specify…a recipient of the data…the cryptographic key 121 can be pseudo-randomly generated by the client application 130 or the key management application 118. If generated by the client application 130, the cryptographic key 121 is transmitted to the key management application 118 which, in turn, communicates the cryptographic key 121 to…client device 106 as instructed by a user of the client application 130…When “Atlanta Health” is selected, the client application 130 may use the one or more cryptographic keys 121 stored in association with the “Atlanta Health” provider to encrypt information for use in a machine-readable identifier 133”; ¶ 0099, i.e., “the first cryptographic key 121a and the second cryptographic key 121b may be sent to the client device 106 by the key management application 118 or other similar service over the network 112”);
encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture by a clinician device (Hill: ¶ 0041, i.e., “generate a machine-readable identifier 133 that includes user input data encrypted with the cryptographic key 121 for the reader device 109”; ¶ 0054, i.e., “transformation of input data into a matrix code or other machine-readable identifier 133. Starting with step 603, user input is accessed. The user input may include, for example, health information”; ¶ 0075, i.e., “Using a reader device 109, the healthcare provider can scan the machine-readable identifier 133”);
Yet, Hill does not explicitly teach, but Experton teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “electronic healthcare records” of Experton as the “various types of user input” including “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first medical information; ¶ 0187; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data… When translated, individual medications and immunization data are matched to the corresponding specific data where the information is being reviewed”); and
providing the second medical information to the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., “The electronic healthcare records may be displayed…in a spoken language of a healthcare professional making use of the electronic healthcare records”; ¶ 0187-0188),
wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has captured the optical code and used the first cryptographic key extracted from the optical code to decrypt the first medical information (Experton: ¶ 0095, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “encryption keys need to decrypt the contents of the container 614” of Experton as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data via mobile to mobile communication in various means (QR code scanning…)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information to the clinician device, wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key, as taught by Experton, within the system of Hill, with the motivation “so that the medical information necessary for a patient to communicate or exchange with a healthcare professional is available at all times” (Experton: ¶ 0185).
Regarding (original) claim 2, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
translating text elements indicated by the second medical information from a first language to a second language (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 3, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
replacing medical terms indicated by the second medical information with corresponding medical terms used by a clinician associated with the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0188-0189).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 4, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 3, wherein the medical terms used by the clinician are consistent with medical terms used in a country in which the clinician device is located (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 5, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
replacing pharmaceutical names indicated by the second medical information with corresponding pharmaceutical names known to a clinician associated with the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 6, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 5, wherein the pharmaceutical names known to the clinician are defined for pharmaceutical distribution in a country in which the clinician device is located (Experton: ¶ 0179; ¶ 0187-0188).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hill and Experton are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding (original) claim 7, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
converting a medication name used in a first country to a corresponding medication name used in a second country (Hill: ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0066, i.e., “a user interface 131 illustrating an embodiment of a screen dedicated to obtaining current and past medications is shown which enables the user to provide current and previous medications”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding (original) claim 8, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
converting a vaccine name used in a first country to a corresponding vaccine name used in a second country (Hill: ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0070, i.e., “a user interface 131 illustrates one embodiment that obtains immunizations from a user”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding (original) claim 9, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
converting a drug allergy name used in a first country to a corresponding drug allergy name used in a second country (Hill: figure 7f, i.e., “Allergies” include “Lasix” as “Name of Medication(s)?”; ¶ 0032, i.e., “translate user input from a first language, such as Spanish, to a second language, such as English”; ¶ 0067, i.e., “a user interface 131 where a user can provide current and past allergies”; ¶ 0092; ¶ 0128).
Regarding (original) claim 12, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first medical information corresponds to information provided by a user of the patient device (Hill: ¶ 0061, i.e., “FIGS. 7A-7N show various examples of user interfaces 131 of the client application 130 used to perform an ingestion process by prompting the user with various types of user input”; ¶ 0072).
Regarding (currently amended) claim 14, Hill teaches a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium comprising code configured to cause a processing circuit (Hill: ¶ 0145) to:
use a healthcare informatics system to obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme (Hill: figure 7k, i.e., “Summary Screen” includes “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.”; ¶ 0061, i.e., “FIGS. 7A-7N show various examples of user interfaces 131 of the client application 130 used to perform an ingestion process by prompting the user with various types of user input”; ¶ 0072);
provide a first cryptographic key to a patient device after receiving a request from the patient device for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information (Hill: ¶ 0060, i.e., “the key management service 115 manages the storage and transmission of the IV to the client devices 106…along with the cryptographic key 121”; ¶ 0079, i.e., “a user of the client application 130 can specify…a recipient of the data…the cryptographic key 121 can be pseudo-randomly generated by the client application 130 or the key management application 118. If generated by the client application 130, the cryptographic key 121 is transmitted to the key management application 118 which, in turn, communicates the cryptographic key 121 to…client device 106 as instructed by a user of the client application 130…When “Atlanta Health” is selected, the client application 130 may use the one or more cryptographic keys 121 stored in association with the “Atlanta Health” provider to encrypt information for use in a machine-readable identifier 133”; ¶ 0099, i.e., “the first cryptographic key 121a and the second cryptographic key 121b may be sent to the client device 106 by the key management application 118 or other similar service over the network 112”);
encode the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture by a clinician device (Hill: ¶ 0041, i.e., “generate a machine-readable identifier 133 that includes user input data encrypted with the cryptographic key 121 for the reader device 109”; ¶ 0054, i.e., “transformation of input data into a matrix code or other machine-readable identifier 133. Starting with step 603, user input is accessed. The user input may include, for example, health information”; ¶ 0075, i.e., “Using a reader device 109, the healthcare provider can scan the machine-readable identifier 133”);
Yet, Hill does not explicitly teach, but Experton teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
responsive to a request from the clinician device, use a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “electronic healthcare records” of Experton as the “various types of user input” including “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first medical information; ¶ 0187; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data… When translated, individual medications and immunization data are matched to the corresponding specific data where the information is being reviewed”); and
provide the second medical information to the clinician device (Experton: ¶ 0179, i.e., “The electronic healthcare records may be displayed…in a spoken language of a healthcare professional making use of the electronic healthcare records”; ¶ 0187-0188),
wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has captured the optical code and used the first cryptographic key extracted from the optical code to decrypt the first medical information (Experton: ¶ 0095, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “encryption keys need to decrypt the contents of the container 614” of Experton as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key; ¶ 0188, i.e., “individual data can be displayed in the spoken language of the healthcare professional making use of that data can be automated based on the GPS location of the individual app user or the GPS location of the health care professional accessing that data via mobile to mobile communication in various means (QR code scanning…)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include responsive to a request from the clinician device, use a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and provide the second medical information to the clinician device, wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key, as taught by Experton, within the system of Hill, with the motivation “so that the medical information necessary for a patient to communicate or exchange with a healthcare professional is available at all times” (Experton: ¶ 0185).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton"), as applied to claims 1-9, 12, 14, further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2014/0095882 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Spalka").
Regarding (original) claim 10, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Spalka teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first cryptographic key is a time-limited key (Spalka: ¶ 0069-0070; ¶ 0128, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “key pairs” of Spalka as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first cryptographic key is a time-limited key, as taught by Spalka, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “If a user attempts to use an “expired” key pair Ki; i.e. the user opens a session on the information system in which he authenticates himself with the key pair then the information system denies him this” (Spalka: ¶ 0070).
Regarding (original) claim 11, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Spalka teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first cryptographic key is a one-time use key (Spalka: ¶ 0069; ¶ 0071; ¶ 0137, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “key pairs” of Spalka as including “the cryptographic key 121” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first cryptographic key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first cryptographic key is a one-time use key, as taught by Spalka, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “If the number of uses of a key pair Ki which has already taken place has reached its maximum number, the information system denies fresh use of Ki; the session is then thus not set up” (Spalka: ¶ 0071).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2021/0224624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hill") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0068785 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Experton"), as applied to claims 1-9, 12, 14, further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2015/0213195 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Blechman").
Regarding (original) claim 13, Hill and Experton teach the method of claim 1.
Yet, Hill and Experton do not explicitly teach, but Blechman teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first medical information corresponds to information extracted from electronic healthcare records stored on the patient device (Blechman: figure 16, i.e., “behavior from PCHR data hub on registered devices” 1632 is used to populate “PCHR patient record” 1642; ¶ 0102, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “behavioral observations and…physiological parameters such as blood glucose, activity, heart rate and blood pressure” of Blechman as the “various types of user input” including “PMHX,” “FamHX,” “PSHx,” “sOChX,” “Immun.,” “Meds.” of Hill, which Examiner interprets as the claimed first medical information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the first medical information corresponds to information extracted from electronic healthcare records stored on the patient device, as taught by Blechman, with the system of Hill and Experton, with the motivation of “enables patients and their support teams to collect, visualize and share merged behavioral observations and physiological results as the basis for day to day practical decisions about healthcare self-management and as the basis for evidence-based shared decision making with healthcare providers who can access patient-collected observations and results from their ECHR systems” (Blechman: ¶ 0102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 03/25/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections.
Regarding the 101 non-statutory subject matter rejection of claim 14, the amendments overcome the rejections.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, “Applicant is requesting a reversal of the election in a response to an Office Action issued in the ‘500 Application and has cancelled claims 1-13 in the ‘500 Application.”
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“The claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity. Rather, they recite a specific technical process that is implemented by a “polyglot healthcare information system”… Claim 1 recites a technically-constrained ordered sequence in which (1) medical information encoded in a first coding scheme is obtained by the healthcare informatics system, (2) a cryptographic key is provided to the patient device for encrypting that information, (3) both the encrypted medical data and the cryptographic key are encoded together in an optical code (QR code) displayed by the patient device, (4) the clinician device captures the optical code, extracts the cryptographic key, and decrypts the first medical information, and (5) a structured mapping translates the decrypted data from the first coding scheme into a second coding scheme before delivery to the clinician device. The claim recites a specific technical method that uses an integrated optical-code, asymmetric-cryptographic, and coding-scheme-interoperability architecture that cannot be categorized simply as an abstract concept of “sharing healthcare information””;
“The specification describes a “polyglot healthcare information system” that solves the concrete, real-world problem of medical record interoperability across healthcare systems, institutions, and countries… The system uses these mappings to automatically translate a patient’s medical records from the coding standard of the patient’s system into the standard required by the clinician’s system (see Specification at paragraph [0130]), enabling a patient presenting at any healthcare facility to have their records accurately interpreted and used by the treating clinician. This is a specific, technical solution to a recognized interoperability challenge in healthcare informatics, not a generic “apply it” instruction. The optical-code delivery mechanism further provides a specific solution to resolving security issues associated with patient-controlled health record access”; and
“the claims include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. The combination of: (a) embedding both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key in a patient-displayed optical code; (b) conditioning clinician access on successful optical code capture and cryptographic decryption; and (c) using a structured mapping between formal medical coding standards to automatically translate the decrypted data before delivery, is unconventional. The specification discloses a proprietary timeout system for the optical code that limits the QR code to one-time use and/or a defined time window (see Specification at paragraphs [0162]-[0164]) and the use of asymmetric key cryptography (see Specification at paragraph [0096]). These are application-specific technical implementations, not routine computer functions. It is noted that the Office Action required combining two separate references (Hill and Experton) to approximate even a portion of technical architecture recited in the claims. The combination of elements recited in the claims is not routine or conventional at the time of the invention.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “The proposed combination of Hill’s QR code-scanning workflow with the Experton translation feature, as characterized in the Office Action, operate in distinctly different system contexts and at different points in the data exchange workflow. There is no teaching in the combined references of a system where: (1) both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key are jointly encoded in an optical code; (2) the clinician device extracts the cryptographic key from the optical code and uses it to decrypt the data; and then (3) using a mapping to translate the decrypted data from a first coding scheme to a second coding scheme before delivery. This specific ordered combination is absent from both references and their combination as cited in the Office Action.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “Translation between coding schemes requires a structured, ontology-aware mapping between formal health data standards and is a recognized technical challenge in health informatics interoperability… Natural language translation is categorically different from translation between structured medical coding standards. Converting a medical term from Spanish to English does not translate between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT codes. The Office Action has not shown where Experton teaches or suggests the recited mapping-based coding-scheme translation.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “This general accessibility rationale addresses Experton’s multi-language display feature and provides no specific reason to integrate formal medical coding-scheme translation via a structured mapping into Hill’s QR-code-based encrypted record exchange system. Modifying Hill to incorporate the specific technical architecture claimed would require fundamental redesign of Hill’s key management and data encoding workflow, and the Office Action has provided no reasoned argument that would suggest that a person of ordinary skill would undertake such modification or have a reasonable expectation of success.”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 112(a) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 112(a) rejections of Office Action dated 11/26/2025 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 non-statutory subject matter rejection of claim 14, the amendments overcome the rejections:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 101 non-statutory subject matter rejection of claim 14 of Office Action dated 11/26/2025 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (c) regarding the double patenting rejections, “Applicant is requesting a reversal of the election in a response to an Office Action issued in the ‘500 Application and has cancelled claims 1-13 in the ‘500 Application”:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner maintains the double patenting rejections because per MPEP § 819: “applicants are not permitted to shift to claim another invention after an election is made and an Office action on the merits is made on the elected invention. Specifically, the applicant may not disaffirm or change their election, as a matter of right, after making an oral election and receiving an Office action based upon that oral election in a pending application. See 37 CFR 1.142(b).”
In response to Applicant’s argument that (d) regarding the 101 rejections,
“The claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity. Rather, they recite a specific technical process that is implemented by a “polyglot healthcare information system”… Claim 1 recites a technically-constrained ordered sequence in which (1) medical information encoded in a first coding scheme is obtained by the healthcare informatics system, (2) a cryptographic key is provided to the patient device for encrypting that information, (3) both the encrypted medical data and the cryptographic key are encoded together in an optical code (QR code) displayed by the patient device, (4) the clinician device captures the optical code, extracts the cryptographic key, and decrypts the first medical information, and (5) a structured mapping translates the decrypted data from the first coding scheme into a second coding scheme before delivery to the clinician device. The claim recites a specific technical method that uses an integrated optical-code, asymmetric-cryptographic, and coding-scheme-interoperability architecture that cannot be categorized simply as an abstract concept of “sharing healthcare information””:
It is respectfully submitted that per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the claims of the present invention encompass the activity of (to paraphrase) rules or instructions followed to access and exchange healthcare information between users, which covers the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Put another way, the claimed invention amounts to a series of rules or steps that users (i.e., patient, doctor) would follow to collect, convert, and exchange medical data accordingly. This is an abstract idea. That the steps are performed on a well-known, general purpose computer (i.e., a computing system having a processor-readable storage medium comprising code; a processing circuit) does not remove the invention from being directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “a specific technical process that is implemented by a “polyglot healthcare information system.”” However, Applicant fails to point to the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer. Regardless, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “polyglot healthcare information system”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites a technically-constrained ordered sequence in which (1) medical information encoded in a first coding scheme is obtained by the healthcare informatics system, (2) a cryptographic key is provided to the patient device for encrypting that information, (3) both the encrypted medical data and the cryptographic key are encoded together in an optical code (QR code) displayed by the patient device, (4) the clinician device captures the optical code, extracts the cryptographic key, and decrypts the first medical information, and (5) a structured mapping translates the decrypted data from the first coding scheme into a second coding scheme before delivery to the clinician device. The claim recites a specific technical method that uses an integrated optical-code, asymmetric-cryptographic, and coding-scheme-interoperability architecture that cannot be categorized simply as an abstract concept of “sharing healthcare information.”” However, Applicant fails to specify how the “integrated optical-code, asymmetric-cryptographic, and coding-scheme-interoperability architecture…cannot be categorized…as an abstract concept of “sharing healthcare information.”” Regardless, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer (i.e., “obtain first medical information that is encoded in accordance with a first coding scheme; providing a first cryptographic key…after receiving a request…for keys to be used to encrypt the first medical information; encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture…; responsive to a request…, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information…, wherein the second medical information is provided…after…[capturing] the optical code and [using] the first cryptographic key extracted from the optical code to decrypt the first medical information”) are interpreted as rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
“The specification describes a “polyglot healthcare information system” that solves the concrete, real-world problem of medical record interoperability across healthcare systems, institutions, and countries… The system uses these mappings to automatically translate a patient’s medical records from the coding standard of the patient’s system into the standard required by the clinician’s system (see Specification at paragraph [0130]), enabling a patient presenting at any healthcare facility to have their records accurately interpreted and used by the treating clinician. This is a specific, technical solution to a recognized interoperability challenge in healthcare informatics, not a generic “apply it” instruction. The optical-code delivery mechanism further provides a specific solution to resolving security issues associated with patient-controlled health record access”:
Applicant argues “a “polyglot healthcare information system” that solves the concrete, real-world problem of medical record interoperability across healthcare systems, institutions, and countries.” However, Applicant fails to point to the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer. Regardless, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “polyglot healthcare information system”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the computing system did not cause the argued problem (i.e., “medical record interoperability”) and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (i.e., a well-known, general purpose computer). While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement or any physical improvement to the computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues “The system uses these mappings to automatically translate a patient’s medical records from the coding standard of the patient’s system into the standard required by the clinician’s system (see Specification at paragraph [0130]), enabling a patient presenting at any healthcare facility to have their records accurately interpreted and used by the treating clinician. This is a specific, technical solution to a recognized interoperability challenge in healthcare informatics, not a generic “apply it” instruction. The optical-code delivery mechanism further provides a specific solution to resolving security issues associated with patient-controlled health record access.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer as the “mappings” (i.e., “using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme”) and “optical-code delivery mechanism” are interpreted as rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Furthermore, "enabling a patient presenting at any healthcare facility to have their records accurately interpreted and used by the treating clinician" and “resolving security issues associated with patient-controlled health record access” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. For example, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
“the claims include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. The combination of: (a) embedding both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key in a patient-displayed optical code; (b) conditioning clinician access on successful optical code capture and cryptographic decryption; and (c) using a structured mapping between formal medical coding standards to automatically translate the decrypted data before delivery, is unconventional. The specification discloses a proprietary timeout system for the optical code that limits the QR code to one-time use and/or a defined time window (see Specification at paragraphs [0162]-[0164]) and the use of asymmetric key cryptography (see Specification at paragraph [0096]). These are application-specific technical implementations, not routine computer functions. It is noted that the Office Action required combining two separate references (Hill and Experton) to approximate even a portion of technical architecture recited in the claims. The combination of elements recited in the claims is not routine or conventional at the time of the invention”:
Applicant argues “The combination of: (a) embedding both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key in a patient-displayed optical code; (b) conditioning clinician access on successful optical code capture and cryptographic decryption; and (c) using a structured mapping between formal medical coding standards to automatically translate the decrypted data before delivery, is unconventional.” However, per MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), evaluating whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but only one consideration “For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept.” Furthermore, the claim limitations to which Applicant seem to refer (i.e., “encoding the first medical information and the first cryptographic key in an optical code that is displayed for capture…; responsive to a request…, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information…, wherein the second medical information is provided…after…[capturing] the optical code and [using] the first cryptographic key extracted from the optical code to decrypt the first medical information”) are interpreted as rules or instructions to access and exchange healthcare information between users, which is the abstract idea, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2B.
Applicant argues “The specification discloses a proprietary timeout system for the optical code that limits the QR code to one-time use and/or a defined time window (see Specification at paragraphs [0162]-[0164]) and the use of asymmetric key cryptography (see Specification at paragraph [0096]). These are application-specific technical implementations, not routine computer functions.” However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a proprietary timeout system for the optical code that limits the QR code to one-time use and/or a defined time window,” “”the use of asymmetric key cryptography”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, per MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), evaluating whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but only one consideration “For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept.”
Applicant argues “the Office Action required combining two separate references (Hill and Experton) to approximate even a portion of technical architecture recited in the claims. The combination of elements recited in the claims is not routine or conventional at the time of the invention.” However, per MPEP § 2106.05(I): “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter…a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty…Because [novelty and obviousness] are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Furthermore, per MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), evaluating whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but only one consideration “For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept.”
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-14, which have been updated to address Applicant’s remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (e) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “The proposed combination of Hill’s QR code-scanning workflow with the Experton translation feature, as characterized in the Office Action, operate in distinctly different system contexts and at different points in the data exchange workflow. There is no teaching in the combined references of a system where: (1) both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key are jointly encoded in an optical code; (2) the clinician device extracts the cryptographic key from the optical code and uses it to decrypt the data; and then (3) using a mapping to translate the decrypted data from a first coding scheme to a second coding scheme before delivery. This specific ordered combination is absent from both references and their combination as cited in the Office Action”:
It is respectfully submitted that in response to applicant's argument that “The proposed combination of Hill’s QR code-scanning workflow with the Experton translation feature, as characterized in the Office Action, operate in distinctly different system contexts and at different points in the data exchange workflow. There is no teaching in the combined references of a system where: (1) both encrypted medical data and a cryptographic key are jointly encoded in an optical code; (2) the clinician device extracts the cryptographic key from the optical code and uses it to decrypt the data; and then (3) using a mapping to translate the decrypted data from a first coding scheme to a second coding scheme before delivery. This specific ordered combination is absent from both references and their combination as cited in the Office Action,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (f) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “Translation between coding schemes requires a structured, ontology-aware mapping between formal health data standards and is a recognized technical challenge in health informatics interoperability… Natural language translation is categorically different from translation between structured medical coding standards. Converting a medical term from Spanish to English does not translate between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT codes. The Office Action has not shown where Experton teaches or suggests the recited mapping-based coding-scheme translation”:
It is respectfully submitted that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ”Translation between coding schemes requires a structured, ontology-aware mapping between formal health data standards,” “translate between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT codes”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, the cited prior art references teach the aforementioned amended claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (g) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “This general accessibility rationale addresses Experton’s multi-language display feature and provides no specific reason to integrate formal medical coding-scheme translation via a structured mapping into Hill’s QR-code-based encrypted record exchange system. Modifying Hill to incorporate the specific technical architecture claimed would require fundamental redesign of Hill’s key management and data encoding workflow, and the Office Action has provided no reasoned argument that would suggest that a person of ordinary skill would undertake such modification or have a reasonable expectation of success”:
It is respectfully submitted that in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include responsive to a request from the clinician device, using a mapping to translate the first medical information to obtain second medical information that is encoded in accordance with a second coding scheme; and providing the second medical information to the clinician device, wherein the second medical information is provided to the clinician device after the clinician device has decrypted the optical code using the first cryptographic key, as taught by Experton, within the system of Hill, with the motivation “so that the medical information necessary for a patient to communicate or exchange with a healthcare professional is available at all times” (Experton: ¶ 0185).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights