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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The IDS filed 10/17/20204 was received and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification (p. 2) should be updated with the parent patent number 12,101,414 in “This application is a continuation application of and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 to U.S. Application Serial No. 17/864,648”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, the claims recite the limitation “wherein the issuer is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer”. The original specification provides literal support for the limitation (specification at p. 4, lines 6-8, p. 5, lines 16-18, p. 21, lines 1-3), but does not teach technical means by which this affect is achieved such that an ordinarily-skilled artisan could make and/or use the invention where the medical treatment machine does not know specific information.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, the claims recite the limitation “wherein the digital prescription file is encrypted by the issuer without the issuer knowing additional information about the medical treatment machine”. The specification does not teach technical means by which this affect is achieved such that an ordinarily-skilled artisan could make and/or use the invention where the issuer does not know specific information.
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 2, 10 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, the claims recite the limitation “wherein the digital prescription file is encrypted by the issuer without the issuer knowing additional information about the medical treatment machine”. However, “additional information” is a relative term compared to an unstated “information”, rendering the claim indefinite.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot, in view of US 2011/0118809 A1 to Rossi et al. (Rossi), “Anonymous public key certificates and their applications” by Oishi et al. (Oishi) and “A security and privacy preserving e-prescription system based on smart cards” by Hsu et al. (Hsu).
Regarding claim 1, Van Oorschot discloses receiving, from a data source (transmitting client, col. 4, lines 58-60) that is external to a machine (devices are connected via a computer network, col. 3, lines 62-66), (i) a digital file (recipient receives encrypted message, col. 4, lines 66-67) and (ii) a certificate associated with an issuer of the digital file (recipient obtains public key certificate of transmitting client, col. 5, lines 1-3), wherein the digital file is encrypted using a first public key (message is encrypted using recipient public key, col. 4, lines 54-59) and digitally signed by the issuer using an issuer (transmitting client) private key (transmitting client signs the message, col. 4, lines 58-59; signature is verified using transmitting client public key, col. 5, lines 5-7), and wherein the certificate (public key certificate of transmitting client) includes an issuer public key corresponding to the issuer (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, where the public key of the transmitting client is included in the certificate, col. 5, lines 1-8); decrypting the digital prescription file using a first private key that corresponds to the first public key (recipient client uses its own private key to decrypt the message, col. 5, lines 8-10), wherein the first private key is accessible by the machine (recipient client uses its own private key to decrypt the message, col. 5, lines 8-10); determining that the issuer of the digital prescription file is an authorized issuer by verifying that the certificate is digitally signed by a trusted authority service (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority; using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-5); and verifying a digital signature on the digital file using the issuer public key in the certificate to confirm that the digital signature is signed by the authorized issuer (recipient client can use the public key of the transmitting party, which is contained in the public key certificate, to verify the signature of the transmitting client, col. 5, lines 6-8). Van Oorschot teaches the well-known concept of using public key infrastructure to ensure privacy and integrity of digital data, but does not teach that the recipient is a medical treatment machine and the digital file is a digital prescription file. However, Rossi teaches that it was known to receive, by a medical treatment machine, a digital prescription file (stimulating device receives data package including prescription, ¶7, p. 3) prescribed by an authorized subject (¶7, p. 2), the file including instructions for medical treatments (prescription is used to program stimulation/administration of treatment, ¶7, p. 3) used for programming the machine according to the prescription received (¶7, p. 3, where the stimulating device administers the treatment, ¶7, p. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Oorschot such that the recipient client is a medical treatment machine and the digital file is a digital prescription file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize the fundamental building blocks of public key infrastructure to achieve privacy and integrity in the transfer of a medical prescription file, as taught by Rossi. As modified, Van Oorschot is silent regarding wherein the issuer is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer.1 However, Oishi teaches that it was known to provide anonymous public key certificates, which increases the chances of monitoring activities of a certificate holder (p. 56, §1, right column)), where an anonymous certificate can provide privacy to a user, but still enable a verifier to confirm authenticity of cryptographic communication with the user (p. 56, §1, right column).2 Further, Hsu teaches that it was known to enable a doctor to sign e-prescriptions anonymously (abstract and p. 3638, left column)3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Oorschot such that the issuer (prescriber in Rossi) is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer by using an anonymous certificate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to maintain privacy of the doctor, as taught by Oishi and Hsu.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Note that Van Oorschot discloses one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Note that Van Oorschot discloses a data storage (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Van Oorschot discloses wherein the digital prescription file (message, Van Oorschot col. 4, lines 66-67; data package including prescription, ¶7, p. 3) is encrypted by the issuer without the issuer knowing additional information about the medical treatment machine (as best understood, Van Oorschot only needs to establish the public key of the recipient; “transmitting client, once it has obtained the public key certificate of another client, may store it locally, such that, for future communications with the recipient client, the transmitting client does not need to access the directory”, col. 4, lines 44-59).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is stored on the medical treatment machine (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is received by the medical treatment machine in a manner that indicates that the trusted authority service is a trusted authorizer of prescription issuers (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-3; Using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 3-5).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the first private key is pre-loaded on the medical treatment machine (recipient client utilizes its own private key to decrypt the message (col. 5, lines 9-11; client devices have public/private key pairs at initialization, col. 9, lines 13-16).
Claims 3, 6, 11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Oorschot, Rossi, Oishi and Hsu, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17, in view of US 2003/0115456 A1 to Kapoor.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches determining that the trusted authority service (certification authority) is trusted to certify ownership of issuer public keys corresponding to the issuers (trusted public key of certification authority is stored in recipient client, col. 5, lines 3-5; as modified by Oishi, the CA issues anonymous public key certificates, indicating that the identity of the issuer (certificate holder) is verified (Oishi, p. 56, right column and p. 60, §3.1, ¶3)). Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches trust in the CA, which would indicate trust to verify identities of issuers, but does not explicitly teach the verification of identities of issuers. However, Kapoor teaches a PKI system, where it was known to implement policies for acquiring certificates, including requiring vetting a doctor’s identity and authorization to issue digitally signed prescriptions as part of certificate enrollment (¶66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot to include determining that the trusted authority service is trusted to verify identities of issuers (certification authority has a policy for vetting physician prescription certificates). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure that a prescriber is authorized prior to receiving a certification, as taught by Kapoor.4
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is provided by the trusted authority service (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority; using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-5), but lacks after the trusted authority service verifies the identity of the issuer and certifies that the issuer is an authorized issuer. However, Kapoor teaches a PKI system, where it was known to implement policies for acquiring certificates, including requiring vetting a doctor’s identity and authorization to issue digitally signed prescriptions as part of certificate enrollment (¶66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the certificate is provided by the trusted authority service after the trusted authority service verifies the identity of the issuer and certifies that the issuer is an authorized issuer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure that a prescriber is authorized prior to receiving a certification, as taught by Kapoor.
Claim 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Oorschot, Rossi, Oishi and Hsu, as applied to claims 1 and 9, in view of US 2010/0010428 A1 to Yu et al. (Yu).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches a medical treatment machine performing a medical treatment based on the digital prescription file (as modified by Ross ¶7, p. 2), but lacks performing a dialysis treatment based on the digital prescription file. However, Yu teaches that it was known to provide a remote dialysis machine (abstract) storing multiple prescriptions for the patient (¶10), the prescriptions loaded into the dialysis machine by a physician (¶67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the medical treatment machine performs a dialysis treatment based on the digital prescription file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to perform dialysis treatments, as taught by Yu.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,188, according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,188, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot, according to the provided correspondence table.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot, according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, in view of “Anonymous public key certificates and their applications” by Oishi et al. (Oishi) and “A security and privacy preserving e-prescription system based on smart cards” by Hsu et al. (Hsu), according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot, “Anonymous public key certificates and their applications” by Oishi et al. (Oishi) and “A security and privacy preserving e-prescription system based on smart cards” by Hsu et al. (Hsu), according to the provided correspondence table.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the corresponding instant claims. Further, a skilled artisan would have found removal of limitations from the patent claims to achieve the instant claims to be an obvious modification, for reasons of breadth. Additional substantive differences between the instant claims and the patented claims are discussed in the provided correspondence table.
18/816,648
10,623,188
11,424,934
1
1
6,17;
1 – The patent claim lacks “wherein the issuer is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer”. However, Oishi teaches that it was known to provide anonymous public key certificates, which increases the chances of monitoring activities of a certificate holder (p. 56, §1, right column)), where an anonymous certificate can provide privacy to a user, but still enable a verifier to confirm authenticity of cryptographic communication with the user (p. 56, §1, right column). Further, Hsu teaches that it was known to enable a doctor to sign e-prescriptions anonymously (abstract and p. 3638, left column). In view of Oishi and Hsu, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
2
1
5
3
9
8
4
10
9
5
11
10
6
12
11
7
2
2
8
5
1
9
15;
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
6,17 - The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the issuer is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer”. However, Oishi teaches that it was known to provide anonymous public key certificates, which increases the chances of monitoring activities of a certificate holder (p. 56, §1, right column)), where an anonymous certificate can provide privacy to a user, but still enable a verifier to confirm authenticity of cryptographic communication with the user (p. 56, §1, right column). Further, Hsu teaches that it was known to enable a doctor to sign e-prescriptions anonymously (abstract and p. 3638, left column). In view of Oishi and Hsu, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
10
1
5
11
9
8
12
10
9
13
11
10
14
12
11
15
2
2
16
5
1
17
15;
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks a medical system comprising a data storage. However, Van Oorschot teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
6,17 - The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks a medical system comprising a data storage. However, Van Oorschot teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the issuer is confirmed to be the authorized issuer without the medical treatment machine knowing an identity of the issuer”. However, Oishi teaches that it was known to provide anonymous public key certificates, which increases the chances of monitoring activities of a certificate holder (p. 56, §1, right column)), where an anonymous certificate can provide privacy to a user, but still enable a verifier to confirm authenticity of cryptographic communication with the user (p. 56, §1, right column). Further, Hsu teaches that it was known to enable a doctor to sign e-prescriptions anonymously (abstract and p. 3638, left column). In view of Oishi and Hsu, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim.
18
1
19
9
20
10
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6795920 B1 (Bacha; Hamid et al.) teaches transferring data between vaults using public key encryption/decryption and digital signatures (col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 23).
US 20180254093 A1 (Rose; Gregory G.) teaches a diagnostic device encrypting medical results with the public key of a recipient device and signing the results (¶57).
WO 2012004838 A1 (MIZUNUMA TAKESHI) teaches anonymous transfer of goods using a certificate and signature (¶151-152).
US 20160235901 A1 (Miller; Joshua James et al.) teaches a home medical therapy device receiving an update program and decrypting the program information (claim 13).
US 20150207626 A1 (Neftel; Frederic et al.) teaches multiple asymmetric keys stored in a MCU and a medical device for public key encryption/signature and signature creation/validation (¶199).
US 20050138362 A1 (Kelly, Edward R. et al.) teaches asymmetric keys for public key encryption/signature and signature creation/validation (¶41).
US 20010027331 A1 (Thompson, David L.) teaches a programmer for an implantable medical device using asymmetric keys for public key encryption/signature and signature creation/validation (¶39).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
December 10, 2025
1 The Examiner notes that “identity” is not defined by the claim, such that any information about the transmitting client (Van Oorschot)/authorized prescriber (as modified by Rossi), would seem to meet this limitation. In pursuit of a compact prosecution, additional art is cited.
2 US 20040025059 A1 (Barkan, Mordehay et al.), US 20100031025 A1 (Zhang; Tao et al.), US 20110055556 A1 (Choi; Byeong Cheol et al.) similarly teach anonymous certificates.
3 “An improved anonymous electronic prescription scheme” (Chung, Chanjoo, et al.) and US 20100169218 A1 (Wang; Changjie et al.) similarly teach providing anonymous prescriptions.
4 “Anonymous e-prescriptions” (Ateniese et al.) also teaches “doctor must be able to provide a proof-of-capacity, which authorizes the doctor to issue the prescription” (p. 22, §4.1).