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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of October 31, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on February 2, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 19, and 20.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Claim Rejections
In response to Applicant’s request to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance without filing a Terminal Disclaimer until allowable subject matter is identified by the Patent Office, the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer should not be held in abeyance as doing so is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims. MPEP §804. Therefore, the double patenting rejections are maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
In response to Applicant's generic assertions that the present claims do not recite an abstract idea or additional limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees as set forth in the rejection below.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
In response to Applicant's generic assertions that the present claims overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103, the Examiner disagrees as set forth in the rejection below.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,971 ("the '971 Patent"). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
For reference, a claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the present application to claim 1 of the '971 Patent is presented below:
Independent Claim 1 of the Present Application
Independent Claim 1 of the '971 Patent
A method for securely sharing patient data, comprising:
A method for securely sharing patient data, comprising:
capturing a computer readable code using an image capture component of a mobile device associated with a patient, the computer readable code associated with a healthcare clinic, wherein the computer readable code includes clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic;
capturing a computer-readable code using an image capture component of a mobile device associated with a patient, the computer-readable code comprising an authentication code provided to a healthcare clinic and clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic; extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information from the computer-readable code, wherein: the authentication code is extracted by decrypting the authentication code, and the clinic identifying information is extracted by decrypting the clinic identifying information of the computer-readable code based on the authentication code;
authenticating the healthcare clinic with a health information provider based on the clinic identifying information of the computer readable code;
authenticating the healthcare clinic with a health information provider based on the authentication code and the clinic identifying information; upon authenticating the healthcare clinic with the health information provider, displaying the clinic identifying information to the patient via the mobile device for confirmation to share the patient data with the healthcare clinic;
authenticating the patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device or the health information provider;
authenticating the patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device or the health information provider;
receiving a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data;
receiving a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data;
determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic and authentication of the patient; and
determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic, authentication of the patient, and the confirmation to share the patient data with the healthcare clinic from the patient; and
transmitting the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data.
transmitting the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data.
Furthermore, a claim chart indicating which claims of the '971 Patent recite corresponding limitations of the remaining present claims is presented below:
Present Application
'971 Patent
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 7
Claim 4
Claim 8
Claim 5
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 6
Claim 12
Claim 7
Claim 13
Claim 8
Claim 14
Claim 9
Claim 15
Claim 10
Claim 16
Claim 12
Claim 17
Claim 14
Claim 18
Claim 15
Claim 19
Claim 17
Claim 20
Claim 18
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:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 19 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 19 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 19 recites:
A system for securely sharing patient data, comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions to:
capture a computer readable code using an image capture component of a mobile device associated with a patient, the computer readable code associated with a healthcare clinic, wherein the computer readable code includes clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic;
authenticate the healthcare clinic with a health information provider based on the clinic identifying information of the computer readable code;
authenticate the patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device or the health information provider;
receive a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data;
determine that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic and authentication of the patient; and
transmit the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a person could facilitate secure sharing of patient data by way of capturing (e.g., visually looking at) a "computer readable code" that includes clinic identifying information (which, per [0034] of the present application, can be a logo, alphanumeric code, etc. and are practically interpretable by a user in their mind), authenticating a healthcare clinic with a health information provider based on the clinic identifying information of the computer readable code (e.g., via mentally comparing any appropriate identifier of the healthcare clinic with a list of known identifiers maintained by the health information provider), authenticating a patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device or the health information provider, receiving a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data (e.g., via listening, reviewing a message, etc.), and determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic and authentication of the patient. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The Examiner also submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For instance, the claimed invention would facilitate sharing of patient health information between medical professionals at different medical facilities upon obtaining authorization which is a method of managing interactions between people.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-17 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claim 2 recites various types of the "computer readable code" and thus just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 3 recites how the "computer readable code" is printed for display at the healthcare clinic, digitally displayed at the healthcare clinic, or digitally displayed on the mobile device and thus just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above (e.g., a person could practically visually observe and think about a code printed for display at a healthcare clinic, etc.).
-Claim 4 recites how the "computer readable code" includes an authentication code provided to a healthcare clinic and clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 5 calls for extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information from the computer readable code which is practically performable in the human mind (e.g., via looking at the "computer readable code" and cleaning the authentication code and clinic identifying information).
-Claim 6 recites how extracting the authentication code includes decrypting the authentication code, and extracting the clinic identifying information includes decrypting the clinic identifying information of the computer readable code based on the authentication code which is practically performable in the human mind at the claimed high level of generality. For instance, a person could easily decrypt a Caesar (shift) cipher by shifting each letter one space forward or backward until a readable message appears.
-Claim 7 recites how authenticating the healthcare clinic includes determining that the authentication code exists on a list of authenticated clinic codes and that the authentication code is associated with the clinic identifying information on the list of authenticated clinic codes which is practically performable in the human mind.
-Claim 8 recites how authenticating the healthcare clinic further includes providing the authentication code and the clinic identifying information to the health information provider and receiving acknowledgement that the authentication code and the clinic identifying information are associated on the list of authenticated clinic codes from the health information provider. These limitations relate to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities).
-Claim 9 recites how extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information includes parsing the computer readable code to identify a link to a webpage that includes one or more of a name, address information, or authentication code of the healthcare clinic and extracting the one or more of the name, the address information, or the authentication code from the webpage, all of which is practically performable in the human mind.
-Claim 10 calls for displaying the clinic identifying information to the patient for confirmation to share the patient data with the healthcare clinic which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities).
-Claim 11 recites how displaying the clinic identifying information further includes prompting for confirmation that the displayed clinic identifying information matches the healthcare clinic with which the patient wants to share its information which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities).
-Claim 12 calls for obtaining the confirmation from the patient to share the patient data which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities) and is practically performable in the human mind (mental processes).
-Claim 13 recites how obtaining the patient authentication information (PII for the patient) includes providing a prompt for the patient authentication information and receiving the patient authentication information in response to the provided prompt which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities) and is practically performable in the human mind (mental processes).
-Claim 14 recites how obtaining the patient authentication information (PII of the patient) includes accessing the patient authentication information which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities) and is practically performable in the human mind (mental processes).
-Claim 15 recites how determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data is further based on determining that the request is received from the healthcare clinic within a threshold time period of capturing the computer readable code which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities) and is practically performable in the human mind (mental processes).
-Claim 16 calls for prompting the patient to input the patient authentication information (DOB or name of patient) which relates to managing relations between people (certain methods of organizing human activities).
-Claim 17 calls for determining whether the request from the healthcare clinic is received within a threshold period of capturing the computer readable code which is practically performable in the human mind (mental processes).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system for securely sharing patient data, comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
capture a computer readable code using an image capture component of a mobile device associated with a patient (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the computer readable code associated with a healthcare clinic, wherein the computer readable code includes clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic;
authenticate the healthcare clinic with a health information provider based on the clinic identifying information of the computer readable code;
authenticate the patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device or the health information provider;
receive a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data;
determine that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic and authentication of the patient; and
transmit the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data (extra-solution activity (transmitting data after first determining healthcare clinic authorization) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the memory with instructions, processor, and mobile device with image capture component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of transmitting the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data after first determining healthcare clinic authorization) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 19 and analogous independent claims 1 and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 19 and analogous independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Regarding the image capture component including one of an image capture circuitry or screen capture component of the mobile device in claim 2, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding use of the mobile device of the patient to performing the displaying, prompting, and obtaining steps in claims 10-13, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding accessing the patient authentication information "from a local application" in claim 14, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding transmitting the patient data when the request from the healthcare clinic is received within the threshold period of capturing the computer readable code in claim 17, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data after first determining healthcare clinic authorization) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding obtaining the threshold period from a configuration file in claim 18, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 19 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the memory with instructions, processor, and mobile device with image capture component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to transmitting the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Regarding the image capture component including one of an image capture circuitry or screen capture component of the mobile device in claim 2, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding use of the mobile device of the patient to performing the displaying, prompting, and obtaining steps in claims 10-13, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding accessing the patient authentication information "from a local application" in claim 14, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Regarding transmitting the patient data when the request from the healthcare clinic is received within the threshold period of capturing the computer readable code in claim 17, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data after first determining healthcare clinic authorization) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding obtaining the threshold period from a configuration file in claim 18, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"):
Regarding claim 1, Experton discloses a method for securely sharing patient data ([0042], [0059], [0071], [0084] disclose secure exchange of patient data), comprising:
capture a computer readable code using an image capture component of a mobile device associated with a patient, the computer readable code associated with a healthcare clinic ([0081] discloses how client device (patient device per [0049]-[0050]) includes a camera (image capture component) that captures an encoded image (e.g., barcode, QRC) from healthcare provider device 424 (of a healthcare provider per [0006] which is necessarily associated with a "healthcare clinic" where the healthcare provider practices); also see [0095] which discusses how patient device can capture a key (computer readable code) from provider/clinic device), wherein the computer readable code includes clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic (as [0081] discloses how the encoded image/QRC/barcode on the provider device 424 is captured and used for identification purposes, then the encoded image/QRC/barcode includes identifying information for the healthcare provider/clinic to allow for such identification purposes);
authenticate the healthcare clinic with a health information provider ([0093] discloses how an authentication server (health information provider) can facilitate authentication of the healthcare provider/clinic based on identifying/authenticating information; additionally/alternatively, [0119] discloses how aggregator (health information provider) can authenticate the healthcare provider/clinic)…;
authenticate the patient based on matching patient authentication information with corresponding patient information stored by the mobile device ([0053] discloses how an agent installed on the client device (patient mobile device) can authenticate the user/patient through password, challenge words, other authentication means, etc. (which would necessarily involve matching patient authentication information received from the patient with corresponding patient information stored by the client/mobile device) or the health information provider ([0119] discloses how aggregator (health information provider) can authenticate the record owner/patient which would necessarily involve matching patient authentication information received from the patient with corresponding patient information stored by the aggregator/health information provider; additionally/alternatively, [0093] discloses how an authentication server (health information provider) can facilitate authentication of the patient and would thus necessarily store corresponding patient information for such purposes);
…;
determine that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data based on authentication of the healthcare clinic and authentication of the patient ([0043], [0119], [0149] disclose sending EHR data to the provider/clinic upon authentication/authorization of the provider/clinic and the user/client/patient); and
transmit the patient data, over a communication channel, to the healthcare clinic based on determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data ([0043], [0119], [0149] disclose sending EHR data to the provider/clinic (e.g., via communication channels such as proximity exchange of Figures 3 and 5, network/wireless LAN of Figures 2, 3, 6, 7) upon authentication/authorization of the provider/clinic and the user/client/patient).
While Experton discloses ([0081]) how the healthcare provider/clinic can be identified based on information in the encoded image and discloses ([0093]) how an authentication server (health information provider) can facilitate authentication of the healthcare provider/clinic based on identifying/authenticating information, Experton might be silent regarding the identifying/authentication information of the healthcare provider/clinic used in the authentication by the authentication server/health information provider specifically being the healthcare provider/clinic identifying information of the computer readable code.
Nevertheless, Park teaches ([0130]) that it was known in the secure information exchange art for an electronic device to extract an address/token (authentication/identifying information) from a scanned QR code and transmit the extracted address/token to a service server requesting authentication of at least some of the transmitted information which takes advantage of authentication/identifying information safely incorporated into a QR code thereby facilitating secure authentication, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Furthermore, while it appears implicit, Experton might be silent specifically regarding receiving a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches ([0068]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to receive a request from a physician terminal (healthcare clinic) for information of a given patient and then transmit the information to the physician terminal which advantageously provides patient information to the physician when needed thereby facilitating patient care and management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have received a request from the healthcare clinic to provide the healthcare clinic with access to the patient data in the system of Experton as taught by Kim to advantageously provide patient information to the physician when needed thereby facilitating patient care and management, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein:
the computer readable code comprises one or more of a one-dimensional barcode, a two- dimensional barcode, a three-dimensional barcode, a logo, a graphic image, or an alphanumeric code ([0081] and [0095] of Experton disclose barcode, quick reference code, an encoded image, etc.), and
the image capture component comprises one of an image capture circuitry or a screen capture component of the mobile device ([0081] of Experton discloses a camera (image capture circuitry)).
Regarding claim 3, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein the computer readable code is printed for display at the healthcare clinic, digitally displayed at the healthcare clinic, or digitally displayed on the mobile device (when the "computer readable code" of Experton is captured by the camera of the user/patient/client/mobile device, it would be digitally displayed thereon).
Regarding claim 10, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including displaying the clinic identifying information to the patient via the mobile device for confirmation to share the patient data with the healthcare clinic ([0054] of Experton discloses presenting the record owner/patient (which would be via their client device) with a request for identification/confirmation of the recipient of the transfer request (which, per [0043], [0119], [0149] of Experton, is the healthcare provider/clinic/doctor).
Regarding claim 11, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 10, further including wherein displaying the clinic identifying information further comprises prompting, via the mobile device, for confirmation that the displayed clinic identifying information matches the healthcare clinic with which the patient wants to share its information ([0054] of Experton discloses presenting the record owner/patient (which would be via their client device) with a request/prompt for identification/confirmation of the recipient of the transfer request (which, per [0043], [0119], [0149], is the healthcare provider/clinic/doctor).
Regarding claim 12, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 11, further including
obtaining the confirmation from the patient via the mobile device to share the patient data with the healthcare clinic ([0054] of Experton discloses presenting the record owner/patient (which would be via their client device) with a request/prompt for identification/confirmation of the recipient of the transfer request (which, per [0043], [0119], [0149], is the healthcare provider/clinic/doctor); and
obtaining the patient authentication information from the mobile device to enable authentication of the patient before transmitting the patient data ([0053], [0084] of Experton discloses how an agent installed on the client device (patient mobile device) can authenticate the user/patient through password, challenge words, other authentication means, etc., where the patient authentication would necessarily occur before transmitting the patient data)).
Regarding claim 13, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 12, further including wherein:
obtaining the patient authentication information comprises providing a prompt for the patient authentication information via the mobile device associated with the patient and receiving the patient authentication information in response to the provided prompt (the password, challenge words, etc. provided by the patient in [0053], [0084] of Experton would necessarily be elicited via some sort of prompt (e.g., field in which to enter information, instructions, etc.)), and
the patient authentication information comprises personally identifiable information for the patient ([0053], [0084] disclose biometric/fingerprint information of the patient (PII)).
Regarding claim 14, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 12, further including wherein:
obtaining the patient authentication information comprises accessing the patient authentication information from a local application ([0053], [0084] of Experton discloses how an agent (local application) installed on the client device (patient mobile device) can authenticate the user/patient through password, challenge words, other authentication means, etc.), and
the patient authentication information comprises personally identifiable information for the patient ([0053], [0084] of Experton disclose biometric/fingerprint information of the patient (PII)).
Regarding claim 16, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including prompting the patient to input the patient authentication information (the password, challenge words, etc. provided by the patient in [0053], [0084] of Experton would necessarily be elicited via some sort of prompt (e.g., field in which to enter information, instructions, etc.)), wherein the patient authentication information comprises one or more of a date of birth (DOB) or a name of the patient ([0066] discloses how the patient enters a username).
Regarding claim 19, Experton discloses a system for securely sharing patient data ([0042], [0059], [0071], [0084] disclose secure exchange of patient data), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ([0169] discloses memory storing software/instructions); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([0169] discloses one or more processors to execute the software/instructions).
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are disclosed by the Experton/Park/Kim combination as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected in view of the Experton/Park/Kim combination as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0352035 to Geraud ("Geraud"):
Regarding claim 4, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, further including wherein the computer readable code comprises:
…, and
clinic identifying information for the healthcare clinic ([0081] of Experton discloses how the "computer readable code" on the provider device is used for identification purposes to permit the EHR to be directed to the provider device; therefore, such identification purposes would include identifying information of the provider ("clinic identifying information").
However, the Experton/Park/Kim combination might be silent regarding the computer readable code specifically including an authentication code provided to a healthcare clinic.
Nevertheless, Geraud teaches ([0091]) that it was known in the secured communication art to extract authentication information and a server address (identifying information) from a scanned QR code to facilitate secure transmission of user data to the server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the computer readable code of the Experton/Park/Kim combination to include an authentication code provide to the healthcare clinic similar to as taught by Geraud to advantageously facilitate secure transmission of the patient data to the healthcare clinic, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination discloses the method of claim 4, further including extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information from the computer readable code (Geraud teaches ([0091]) that it was known in the secured communication art to extract authentication information and a server address (identifying information) from a scanned QR code to facilitate secure transmission of user data to the server. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the computer readable code of the Experton/Park/Kim combination to include an authentication code provide to the healthcare clinic similar to as taught by Geraud to advantageously facilitate secure transmission of the patient data to the healthcare clinic, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, and because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0352035 to Geraud ("Geraud"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0060059 to Yoshida (“Yoshida”):
Regarding claim 7, the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination discloses the method of claim 5, but appears to be silent regarding authenticating the healthcare clinic comprises determining that the authentication code exists on a list of authenticated clinic codes and that the authentication code is associated with the clinic identifying information on the list of authenticated clinic codes.
Nevertheless, Yoshida teaches ([0046]-[0056]) that it was known in the computer networking art for an access server 54 to manage a user list for identifying authorized users, containing user identifiers and/or identification codes corresponding to the authentication data. When receiving an access request and authentication data (including user identifier and identification/authentication code) from the data processor 10, the access server 54 performs decoding when necessary, checks the authentication data for validity by comparison with data registered on the user list, and determines whether to permit the access to the database 58.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have authenticated the healthcare clinic by determining that the authentication code exists on a list of authenticated clinic codes and that the authentication code is associated with the clinic identifying information on the list of authenticated clinic codes in the system of the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination as taught by Yoshida to advantageously increase the security of the patient data by confirming that the clinic name and code are on an approved list. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 8, the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud/Yoshida combination discloses the method of claim 7, further including wherein authenticating the healthcare clinic further comprises providing the authentication code and the clinic identifying information to the health information provider and receiving acknowledgement that the authentication code and the clinic identifying information are associated on the list of authenticated clinic codes from the health information provider (the access provided by the peripheral device to the application in [0056] is an acknowledgement that the identification/authentication code and user identifier (identifying information) are associated on the list of authenticated codes; similar to the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the authentication code and the clinic identifying information to the health information provider and received acknowledgement that the authentication code and the clinic identifying information are associated on the list of authenticated clinic codes from the health information provider in the system of the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination as taught by Yoshida to advantageously increase the security of the patient data by confirming that the clinic name and code are on an approved list. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0352035 to Geraud ("Geraud"), and further in view of NPL "QR code - Wikipedia ("QR Code," cited in IDS):
Regarding claim 9, the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination discloses the method of claim 5 and appears to be silent regarding but QR Code discloses wherein extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information comprises:
parsing the computer readable code to identify a link to a webpage that includes one or more of a name, address information, or authentication code of the healthcare clinic; and
extracting the one or more of the name, the address information, or the authentication code from the webpage (QR Code discloses (see “Website login” section) using QR codes to log into websites which would necessarily involve parsing the QR code to identify the webpage link and extracting the name/address information from the webpage; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the extracting the authentication code and the clinic identifying information to include parsing the computer readable code to identify a link to a webpage that includes one or more of a name, address information, or authentication code of the healthcare clinic; and extracting the one or more of the name, the address information, or the authentication code from the webpage in the system of the Experton/Park/Kim/Geraud combination as taught by QR code to advantageously facilitate determination of the clinic identifying information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0052870 to Guo et al. ("Guo"):
Regarding claim 15, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding wherein determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data is further based on determining that the request is received from the healthcare clinic within a threshold time period of capturing the computer readable code.
Nevertheless, Guo teaches ([0153]-[0160]) that it was known in the information sharing art to determine whether a sharing request is sent within a particular time period (threshold) of scanning a QR code which advantageously prevents the QR code from being cracked or maliciously changed when it is valid for a long time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the determining that the healthcare clinic is authorized to receive access to the patient data in the system of the Experton/Park/Kim combination to be further based on determining that the request is received from the healthcare clinic within a threshold time period of capturing the computer readable code similar to as taught by Guo to advantageously prevent the QR code from being cracked or maliciously changed when it is valid for a long time thereby increasing communication security. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 17, the Experton/Park/Kim combination discloses the method of claim 1, but appears to be silent regarding determining whether the request from the healthcare clinic is received within a threshold period of capturing the computer readable code, wherein transmitting the patient data is further based on a determination that the request from the healthcare clinic is received within the threshold period of capturing the computer readable code.
Nevertheless, Guo teaches ([0153]-[0160]) that it was known in the information sharing art to determine whether a sharing request is sent within a particular time period (threshold) of scanning a QR code and then to return sharing control authority when the request is sent within the time period which advantageously prevents the QR code from being cracked or maliciously changed when it is valid for a long time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether the request from the healthcare clinic of the Experton/Park/Kim combination is received within a threshold period of capturing the computer readable code whereby transmitting the patient data is further based on a determination that the request from the healthcare clinic is received within the threshold period of capturing the computer readable code similar to as taught by Guo to advantageously prevent the QR code from being cracked or maliciously changed when it is valid for a long time thereby increasing communication security. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0233225 to Experton et al. ("Experton") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0201492 to Park et al. ("Park"), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0249804 to Kim ("Kim"), and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0052870 to Guo et al. ("Guo"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,023,298 to Varbedian et al. ("Varbedian"):
Regarding claim 18, the Experton/Park/Kim/Guo combination discloses the method of claim 17, but appears to be silent regarding obtaining the threshold period from a configuration file.
Nevertheless, Varbedian teaches that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to obtain a threshold period of time from a configuration file for processing messages/events (10:51-52) to advantageously control how and when events/messages are processed thereby improving the efficiency of a user device (2:37-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obtained the threshold period in the system of the Experton/Park/Kim/Guo combination from a configuration file similar to as taught by Varbedian to advantageously control how and when messages/events are processed thereby improving the efficiency of a user device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached on 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686