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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP2023/059369, filed on April 20, 2022.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
In the preliminary amendment filed on October 18, 2024, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-12 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-15 are pending.
In the preliminary amendment filed on October 18, 2024, the following has occurred: the Specification has been amended to include the priority benefit to International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2023/059369.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “the one or more data modeling templates” in p. 3, ll. 29, p. 4, ll. 1. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “the one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates”.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “the step of defining or modifying” in p. 4, ll. 18. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a step of defining or modifying”.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “the step of defining or modifying” in p. 4, ll. 25-26. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a step of defining or modifying”.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “the output data structure and the data formatting language” in p. 5, ll. 5-6. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “an output data structure and a data formatting language”.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “the designated access protocol” in p. 5, ll. 10. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a designated access protocol”.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “the system” in p. 5, ll. 14, “the data sockets” in p. 5, ll. 16, “the received data” in p. 5, ll. 16-17, “the updates” in p. 5, ll. 17, “them” in p. 5, ll. 17. These appear to be typographical errors. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a clinical data access system”, “the protocol-specific network sockets”, “the received clinical data”, “the dynamic data updates”, “the dynamic data updates”.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “the clinical data access system” in p. 5, ll. 18-19. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a clinical data access system”.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “or client application” in p. 6, ll. 21. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “or the client application”.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “the designated access protocol” in p. 6, ll. 26. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “a designated access protocol”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s):
receiving, an access request for clinical data about one or more subjects;
obtaining, linkage information for the one or more subjects, wherein the linkage information comprises: (i) information, comprising a location and access protocol, regarding each of the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with each of the one or more subjects, and (ii) identifiers for the one or more subjects used for lookup in the one or more remote clinical data databases;
obtaining, one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates that each specify, for a respective access protocol of the one or more remote clinical data databases, protocol-specific data fields to be retrieved;
instantiating, using the linkage information specifying the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with the one or more subjects, a protocol-specific network socket for an identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases;
retrieving, clinical data contained in the protocol-specific data fields about the one or more subjects from the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases; and
providing the retrieved clinical data about the one or more subjects
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the “via a user interface of the clinical data access system or a client application,”, “wherein the clinical data is stored in one or more of the remote clinical data databases”, “via the instantiated protocol-specific network socket,” language, the “receiving” and “retrieving” functions in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions in response to a request for access to clinical data. Similarly, but for the “via a linkage information registry or via a client application,”, “via a data modeling template registry using a template or template group identifier from a user interface or a remote client application, or directly via a remote client application,” language, the “obtaining” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to identify and obtain information based on linkage information and a template or template group identifier. Similarly, the “instantiating” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user following instructions to represent a protocol-specific network socket. Finally, the “providing” function in the context of this claim encompasses a user providing the retrieved clinical data. These steps could be accomplished by a person managing medical information to be shown to another person by following rules or instructions, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-10 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations. For example, claim 2 describes the use of generic computer components. Similarly, claim 3 further describes instantiating for a second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases. Similarly, claims 4-6 describe how a user can interact with generic computer components. Similarly, claim 7 further describes defining a data modeling template. Similarly, claim 8 further describes the instantiated protocol-specific network socket. Similarly, claim 9 further describes the linkage information. Finally, claim 10 further describes the clinical data access system. Such steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-10: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea.
Claims 1-10, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components,
“wherein the clinical data is stored in one or more of the remote clinical data databases” in independent claim 1, “a data handler and an orchestrator” in claim 2, “the user interface or a client application” in claim 4, “the user interface or a defining or modifying tool” in claims 5-6, “a gateway service” in claim 10. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “via a user interface of the clinical data access system or a client application,”, “via a linkage information registry or via a client application,”, “via a data modeling template registry using a template or template group identifier from a user interface or a remote client application, or directly via a remote client application,”, “via the instantiated protocol-specific network socket,” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-10: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.")
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claims 11-15 recite the same functions as claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, but in system form, and the additional element “processor” that amounts to a generic computer component.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aunger et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0211059) in view of Churchwell et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0191161).
As per independent claim 1, Aunger discloses a method for accessing clinical data using a clinical data access system, wherein the clinical data access system is in communication with a plurality of remote clinical data databases, the plurality of remote clinical data databases comprising two or more different access protocols, the method comprising:
obtaining, via a linkage information registry or via a client application, linkage information for the one or more subjects, wherein the linkage information comprises: (i) information, comprising a location and access protocol, regarding each of the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with each of the one or more subjects (See [0104]: The medical trust system can provide the request to the storage systems, for example via the health communication protocol, optionally the medical trust system may maintain locations (e.g., network locations) of portions of each patient's medical information, which the Examiner is interpreting the health communication protocol and the locations of portions of each patient's medical information to encompass information, comprising a location and access protocol, and the application may be associated with one or more storage systems), and (ii) identifiers for the one or more subjects used for lookup in the one or more remote clinical data databases (See [0104]: The medical trust system may store a unique identified associated with each patient, and additionally locations of portions of the patient's medical information, which the Examiner is interpreting a unique identified associated with each patient to encompass identifiers for the one or more subjects used for lookup in the one or more remote clinical data databases);
obtaining, via a data modeling template registry using a template or template group identifier from a user interface or a remote client application, or directly via a remote client application, one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates that each specify, for a respective access protocol of the one or more remote clinical data databases, protocol-specific data fields to be retrieved (See [0052]-[0053]: The medical trust system can provide the medical information back to the user device in an encrypted form according to the health communication protocol, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical trust system to encompass a remote client application, the health communication protocol to encompass a respective access protocol of the one or more remote clinical data databases, interpreting constraints to encompass one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates as the constraints specify the information that can be communicated);
instantiating, using the linkage information specifying the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with the one or more subjects, a protocol-specific network socket for an identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0049]-[0052], [0061]: Communications between the user device and the medical trust system are packaged according to a health communication protocol, the communications can be specific to a particular port, such as port 2047, 2041, or 1357, which is recognizable to the user device 150 and medical trust system 100 as being associated with the health communication protocol, which the Examiner is interpreting the particular port to encompass a protocol-specific network socket as the medical trust system can access one or more databases to obtain the requested medical information ([0049]-[0050]));
retrieving, via the instantiated protocol-specific network socket, clinical data contained in the protocol-specific data fields about the one or more subjects from the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0049]-[0052]: The medical trust system determines that the medical professional is authorized to access the requested medical information, the medical trust system can access one or more databases or one or more storage subsystems (for example, record database 110), and obtain the medical information, which the Examiner is interpreting the portions of the patient's health record to encompass clinical data contained in the protocol-specific data fields about the one or more subjects from the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases); and
providing the retrieved clinical data about the one or more subjects (See [0049]-[0052]: The requested medical information can then be provided to the user device via a network and presented to the medical professional.)
While Aunger teaches the method as described above, Aunger may not explicitly teach receiving, via a user interface of the clinical data access system or a client application, an access request for clinical data about one or more subjects, wherein the clinical data is stored in one or more of the remote clinical data databases.
Churchwell teaches a method for receiving, via a user interface of the clinical data access system or a client application, an access request for clinical data about one or more subjects, wherein the clinical data is stored in one or more of the remote clinical data databases (See [0064]: The Application server will poll the Edge Server for the requested patient data upon user input, which the Examiner is interpreting patient data to encompass clinical data, interpreting the client interface to encompass a user interface, and interpreting various patient databases to encompass one or more of the remote clinical data databases.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Aunger to include receiving, via a user interface of the clinical data access system or a client application, an access request for clinical data about one or more subjects, wherein the clinical data is stored in one or more of the remote clinical data databases as taught by Churchwell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Aunger with Churchwell with the motivation of vastly improve the ability to easily and quickly access stored patient data in a readily usable format at the point and time of patient care (See Background of Churchwell in Paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 11 mirrors claim 1 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
The additional element of “a processor is configured to:” is encompassed by Aunger in Paragraph [0125]: “a user device of one or more processors”.
As per claim 2, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger may not explicitly teach further comprising, via a data handler and an orchestrator of the clinical data access system using information from the one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates, the steps of:
applying data pre-processing, such as data conversion and semantics translation, on the retrieved clinical data; and
packaging the retrieved clinical data into a desired output data structure.
Churchwell teaches a method further comprising, via a data handler and an orchestrator of the clinical data access system using information from the one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates (See [0180]: The system converts data extracted from various clinical data sources into actionable, workflow correspondent information through the application of algorithms and other clinical knowledge, which the Examiner is interpreting the application of algorithms to encompass a data handler and an orchestrator of the clinical data access system), the steps of:
applying data pre-processing, such as data conversion and semantics translation, on the retrieved clinical data (See [0180]: The system converts certain data into more appropriate forms depending on the source and the destination of the data, which the Examiner is interpreting converts certain data into more appropriate forms to encompass data conversion and semantics translation); and
packaging the retrieved clinical data into a desired output data structure (See [0181]: The system is configured to cause the user device to display a comprehensive merged or aggregated electronic medical patient record.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Aunger to include further comprising, via a data handler and an orchestrator of the clinical data access system using information from the one or more protocol-specific data modeling templates, the steps of: applying data pre-processing, such as data conversion and semantics translation, on the retrieved clinical data; and packaging the retrieved clinical data into a desired output data structure as taught by Churchwell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Aunger with Churchwell with the motivation of vastly improve the ability to easily and quickly access stored patient data in a readily usable format at the point and time of patient care (See Background of Churchwell in Paragraph [0016]).
As per claim 3, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches further comprising:
instantiating, using the linkage information for an identified second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases, a second protocol-specific network socket for the identified second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0049]-[0052], [0061]: Communications between the user device and the medical trust system are packaged according to a health communication protocol, the communications can be specific to a particular port, such as port 2047, 2041, or 1357, which is recognizable to the user device 150 and medical trust system 100 as being associated with the health communication protocol, which the Examiner is interpreting the particular port to encompass a second protocol-specific network socket as the medical trust system can access one or more databases to obtain the requested medical information ([0049]-[0050]));
retrieving, via the instantiated second protocol-specific network socket, clinical data contained in the protocol-specific data fields about the one or more subjects from the identified second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0049]-[0052]: The medical trust system determines that the medical professional is authorized to access the requested medical information, the medical trust system can access one or more databases or one or more storage subsystems (for example, record database 110), and obtain the medical information, which the Examiner is interpreting the portions of the patient's health record to encompass clinical data contained in the protocol-specific data fields about the one or more subjects from the identified second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases); and
merging and packaging the clinical data retrieved from the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases and the identified second one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0049]-[0052], [0092]: The requested medical information can then be provided to the user device via a network and presented to the medical professional, and the medical trust system 100 can, in response to requests, generate combinations of information from the chunks and provide information on the fly in response.)
Claim(s) 12 mirrors claim 3 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
As per claim 4, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches wherein a user browses and selects, via the user interface or a client application, linkage information for access to the one or more of the plurality of remote clinical data databases comprising the clinical data of the one or more subjects (See [0044]-[0045]: The user device may be a thin client, and the example medical information may be generated via a back-end web application, the user device can access medical information utilizing only a web browser, which the Examiner is interpreting the user device to encompass the user interface, and access requests to encompass linkage information for access.)
Claim(s) 13 mirrors claim 4 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
As per claim 5, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches further comprising a step of defining or modifying, via the user interface or a defining or modifying tool, linkage information to add linkage information for a new clinical data database or update linkage information for an existing clinical data database (See [0073]-[0074]: The medical professional can utilize the application executing on the user device to update the medical information, generate and include additional information (for example, additional images, notes, and so on) via the application, which the Examiner is interpreting update the medical information to encompass defining or modifying, via the user interface or a defining or modifying tool, linkage information to add linkage information for a new clinical data database or update linkage information for an existing clinical data database), the linkage information comprising at least: (i) information, comprising a location and access protocol, regarding each of the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with each of the one or more subjects, and (ii) identifiers for the one or more subjects used for lookup in the one or more remote clinical data databases (See [0074]-[0075]: The medical trust system can receive the updates and provide them to one or more outside systems for storage, and the user device of the medical professional can receive updated information and route the updated information via the medical trust system, which the Examiner is interpreting the health information to encompass identifiers for the one or more subjects used for lookup in the one or more remote clinical data databases, and interpreting trusted with a portion of a patient's health record that corresponds to the updated or additional, information can be similarly trusted with the updated or additional information to encompass information, comprising a location and access protocol, regarding each of the one or more remote clinical data databases associated with each of the one or more subjects.)
As per claim 6, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches further comprising a step of defining or modifying, via the defining, via the defining or modifying tool or a user interface, a data modeling template for the clinical data access system (See [0044]-[0045]: The user device may be a thin client, and the example medical information may be generated via a back-end web application, the user device can access medical information utilizing only a web browser, which the Examiner is interpreting the user device can access medical information utilizing only a web browser to encompass the claimed portion.)
As per claim 7, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claims 1 and 6 as described above. Aunger further teaches wherein defining a data modeling template for the clinical data access system comprises:
identifying one or more protocol-specific data fields to be retrieved or updated (See [0073]-[0075]: The user device of the medical professional can receive updated information and route the updated information via the medical trust system, which the Examiner is interpreting the updated information to encompass one or more protocol-specific data fields to be retrieved or updated.)
While Aunger discloses the method wherein defining a data modeling template for the clinical data access system comprises: identifying one or more protocol-specific data fields to be retrieved or updated, Aunger may not explicitly teach wherein defining a data modeling template for the clinical data access system comprises:
specifying data pre-processing to be applied to retrieved data; and
specifying how retrieved data fields will be organized and packaged in an output data structure and a data formatting language utilized.
Churchwell teaches a method wherein defining a data modeling template for the clinical data access system comprises:
specifying data pre-processing to be applied to retrieved data (See [0180]: The system converts certain data into more appropriate forms depending on the source and the destination of the data, which the Examiner is interpreting converts certain data into more appropriate forms to encompass data pre-processing to be applied to retrieved data); and
specifying how retrieved data fields will be organized and packaged in an output data structure and a data formatting language utilized (See [0181]: The system is configured to cause the user device to display a comprehensive merged or aggregated electronic medical patient record.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Aunger to include defining a data modeling template for the clinical data access system comprises: specifying data pre-processing to be applied to retrieved data; and specifying how retrieved data fields will be organized and packaged in an output data structure and a data formatting language utilized as taught by Churchwell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Aunger with Churchwell with the motivation of vastly improve the ability to easily and quickly access stored patient data in a readily usable format at the point and time of patient care (See Background of Churchwell in Paragraph [0016]).
As per claim 8, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger may not explicitly teach wherein the instantiated protocol-specific network socket generates a request to query or update the clinical data in the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases, and wherein the instantiated protocol-specific network socket parses a response received to the query using a messaging format of a designated access protocol.
Churchwell teaches a method wherein the instantiated protocol-specific network socket generates a request to query or update the clinical data in the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0058]-[0060]: The server may verify authorized access, may determine how the patient data is displayed, captured, and validated, and will be configured to broadcast patient data updates to the appropriate EMR systems and/or HIE systems, which the Examiner is interpreting broadcast patient updates to encompass generates a request to query or update the clinical data in the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases, and the SSL to encompass the instantiated protocol-specific network socket), and wherein the instantiated protocol-specific network socket parses a response received to the query using a messaging format of a designated access protocol (See [0064]: The Edge Server sends the requested information using standard, HIPAA-compliant encrypted HL7 and/or C32 messaging protocols, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the query using a messaging format of a designated access protocol.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Aunger to include the instantiated protocol-specific network socket generates a request to query or update the clinical data in the identified one of the plurality of remote clinical data databases, and wherein the instantiated protocol-specific network socket parses a response received to the query using a messaging format of a designated access protocol as taught by Churchwell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Aunger with Churchwell with the motivation of vastly improve the ability to easily and quickly access stored patient data in a readily usable format at the point and time of patient care (See Background of Churchwell in Paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 14 mirrors claim 8 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
As per claim 9, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches wherein the linkage information further comprises access and/or authentication credentials or encryption/decryption keys for one or more of the plurality of remote clinical data databases (See [0047]-[0048]: The medical information may be encrypted, and the software agent may decrypt the information according to satisfaction of particular constraints, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical information may be encrypted to encompass the linkage information further comprises access and/or authentication credentials or encryption/decryption keys as authentication the user ([0048]).)
Claim(s) 15 mirrors claim 9 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 9.
As per claim 10, Aunger/Churchwell discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Aunger further teaches wherein the clinical data access system further comprises a gateway service that handles dynamic data update requests by listening to and receiving event-triggered push messages from the remote clinical data databases (See [0093], [0226]: Hospitals and/or medical groups may store portions of the health record that are updated by respective medical professionals, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical trust system to encompass a gateway service that handles dynamic data update requests, and interpreting the updates by medical professionals to encompass an event-triggered push message), using the protocol-specific network sockets and data handlers to process the received clinical data, storing the dynamic data updates locally and sending dynamic data updates to the client application periodically or upon request (See [0040]-[0046], [0209]-[0210]: The system can monitor changes to the patient's health record, such that versions of the health record can be generated, which the Examiner is interpreting the update portions of health records and storing the accessed information to encompass using the protocol-specific network sockets and data handlers to process the received clinical data, storing the dynamic data updates locally and sending dynamic data updates to the client application periodically or upon request.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Englund et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0110547), describes MedMaster Mobility provides a seamless way to populate the Electronic Health record (EHR). It is designed to fit in the workflow, style and work habits of users.
Myers et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0030838), describes a system and methods for accessing patient medical records from national and non-national healthcare system records databases.
Shin et al. (“A Good Practice–Compliant Clinical Trial Imaging Management System for Multicenter Clinical Trials: Development and Validation Study”), describes a system architecture that was designed in accordance with regulations by a multidisciplinary team including radiologists, engineers, clinical trial specialists, and regulatory medicine professionals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (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 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683