DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the near real time health data is collected by a health monitoring device associated with the user." Parent claim 15, already recites, “wherein the near real time health data was collected by one or more health monitoring devices associated with the user”. It is unclear what claim 19 adds to claim 15, and what is missing from claim 15. This renders both claims unclear and indefinite, as well as all depending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 13-21 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biegel et al., USPN 2022/0279331.
With regard to claims 1 and 9, Biegel discloses a method, including: receiving, at a public safety answering point (PSAP) (0003, 0042-0044), from a device, an emergency communication and an authorization originating from the device (0042), including a password, key, or token (0043, 0075, 0089-0090), to access near real time health data for a user (0043) stored in a secure location (0044), wherein the near time health related data was collected by one or more health monitoring devices associated with the user (0032, 0004-0005, 0169, 0079, 0035), wherein the emergency communication and the authorization to access the near real time health data was sent in response to a predetermined condition being met (0042-0044, 0111-0113), and using the authorization to access the near real time health data related to the user from the secure location (0169, 0128, 0172, 0044), and communicating the near real time health related data to a first responder responding to the emergency communication (0041, 0053, 0078, 0065, 0112, 0128, 0131).
With regard to claims 2 and 15, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the predetermined condition was a detected health emergency related to the user (0042).
With regard to claim 3, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the health emergency has rendered the user unconscious and/or incapacitated (0167-0169, 0042, 0112).
With regard to claims 4, 14, and 17, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the near real time health data is a biometric reading of a condition of the user that has been collected within less than one (1) minutes from when the health data is received (0035, 0169, 0172, 0112, 0128, 0131).
With regard to claims 6, 13, 16, and 21, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses communicating the authorization to access the health data related to the user to a first responder to allow the first responder to access the near real time health data (0112, 0128, 0131, 0169, 0172).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses receiving updated near real time health data related to the user (0112, 0128, 0131, 0169, 0172).
With regard to claim 20, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the authorization to access the near real time health data for the user is located on the device that detected the medical emergency related to the user (0042, 0043, 0111-0113).
With regard to claim 23, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses communicating the authorization to the secure location, wherein the secure location verifies the authorization before communicating the near real time health data (0043, 0089).
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.
Claims 10, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biegel in view of Moriarty et al., USPN 2013/0194092.
With regard to claims 10, 11, and 22, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not disclose authorization to access near real time health data for the user was automatically send in response to the user being unconscious or incapacitated or is having a life-threatening medical emergency. Moriarty discloses a method of granting access to medical data through a PSAP in an emergency (0045, 0026, 0041), and further discloses the request being automatically send in response to the user being unconscious or incapacitated or is having a life-threatening medical emergency (0025). The examiner further took official notice that it is well known in the art to allow health sensors and monitors to make emergency calls when a user is unconscious, incapacitated, or is having a life-threatening medical emergency. This notice was not traversed, and is thus taken as admitted prior art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to send the emergency call in case of incapacitation of Moriarty and examiner’s official notice, in the method of Biegel, using the authorization method of Biegel, for the motivation of maintaining security while saving lives and in order to provide the potentially life-saving information stored within the clearinghouse to those capable of providing emergency assistance as quickly and easily as possible, a stated motivation of Biegel (0099).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection are persuasive, and that rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant states that Biegel does not disclose that the authorization originates from the user’s device. The examiner points out that the claims do not state this limitation. The device of the claim can read on the device of the emergency responder, or any other device that provides authorization to access user health data. The examiner would further like to state that he believes amending the claims to clearly specify that the authorization originates from the user device to authorize the use of his sensed real time medical information would likely advance prosecution.
Applicant further argues that Biegel does not disclose the data is stored separate from the clearinghouse system. This limitation was not found in the claims. Biegel does disclose needing authorization to access the data, thus it Is seen as a secure location, as users that are not authorized cannot access the data.
Applicant further argues that Biegel does not disclose providing the data to a first responder. The examiner points to paragraph 0032 of Biegel, for example, where Biegel states, “during an emergency, a modern mobile communication device may have access to an implicated person's blood type, preexisting medical conditions, or even the implicated person's current heartrate.” Biegel further states, in paragraph 0041, that “additional data stored within the clearinghouse 150 allows emergency responders to be better prepared for the emergencies they face.”
With regard to applicants argument directed at the 103 rejection, Biegel discloses using a key, password, or token, for authorization, as outlined above. Moriarty discloses a request being automatically send in response to the user being unconscious or incapacitated, as outlined above.
References Cited
Martin, USPN 2019/0174289, discloses a method of authorizing a user to access PSAP medical data (0210).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights