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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 January 2026 and 20 March 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed 31 March 2026 has been approved by the office.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite methods and systems to give authorization for data access. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the access could be given by people speaking to one another. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of the PSAP and storing information in secure locations are well-understood conventional computer functions.
2A
Prong one - The claims constitute a mental process that could be performed with verbal authorization or by using pen and paper.
Prong two – The additional elements, such as the PSAP, are merely computer elements to implement the abstract idea. The examiner points out that the claimed computer elements merely utilize computer elements to transmit the authorization, and that is the exception itself.
2B
The claims do not contain additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea outlined above.
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 1-9 and 12-20 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) to access near real time health data for a user (0043) stored in a secure location (0044), 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).
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 5 and 12, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses communicating the near real time health data to a first responder responding to the emergency communication (0112, 0128, 0131).
With regard to claims 6, 13, and 16, 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 7 and 19, Biegel discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the near real time health data related to the user was collected by one or more health monitoring devices associated with the user (0169, 0079, 0035).
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).
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 and 11 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 and 11, 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 for the motivation of 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 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that a modest amendment was made to overcome the 101 rejection, but does not argue as to why or how the amendment is meant to overcome the rejection.
Applicant states how a 102 rejection must be made, but does not argue as to why or how the non-final rejection fails at any of the criteria. Applicant further quotes claim 1, and states that no reference include its features, but does not argue as to why or how the references cited by the examiner fail. The same manner of arguing was presented in regard to the 103 rejection, without attempting to point out any shortcomings in the prior rejection.
References Cited
Edge, USPN 2017/0215056, discloses a method that when a medical event occurs, a sensor can detect it and initiate a call to a caregiver that would then contact a PSAP to give an authorization log-on information to collect medical data (0025).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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