DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-21 filed January 15, 2025 for examination. Claim 19 was canceled. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are being examined and are pending.
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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment to the claims and specifications, filed 01/15/2025 has been acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/14/2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/15/2025 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim phrases/languages are unclear which makes the scope of the claim unclear, thus claims are indefinite.
Claims 1 and 21 recites, “generating a scannable token for interacting with one or more medical devices involved in a first patient encounter to fulfill the first order;” It is unclear how the token interacting with one or more medical devices involved in a first patient encounter to fulfill the first order. It is unclear what “involved” means here.
Claim 1, 5, 8, 21 recite, “…at least a portion of information associated with the first order.” The scope of a portion of information is indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20 do not cure the deficiencies set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0000997 A1 to Batch et al. (“Batch”).
Regarding claim 1, (Original) Batch taught a system, comprising: at least one data processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising:
receiving a selection of a first order associated with a first patient (Para. 0036. The server 35 electronically receives medication orders from physicians from one or more sources 36. Medication orders may also be entered into the server by the pharmacy. Para. 0041. As used herein, the term “medication” is meant to be understood in a broad sense as pertaining to medical care. “Medication” would include oral medications and infusions of medications.);
generating a scannable token for interacting with one or more medical devices involved in a first patient encounter to fulfill the first order (Para. 0037. The label may also include a bar code label, either two dimensional or linear, or an RFID tag, or other machine-readable data source. Print physical labels for the medications to be administered to patients. Para. 0047. The bar code contains a patient identification (Patient ID) and a pending order identification (Order ID). Optional information on the bar code is Drug ID and concentration.);
sending, to a client device, the scannable token (Para. 0037. The label may also include a bar code label, either two dimensional or linear, or an RFID tag, or other machine-readable data source. The labeled medications are transported to the location of the patient or near the patient for administration. Para. 0039. Generated bar code placed onto patient wrist band); and
in response to the scannable token being scanned at the one or more medical devices, sending, to the one or more medical devices, at least a portion of information associated with the first order (Para. 0042. 0042] If authorized, the clinician may then scan a medication container 24 label 46 (FIG. 1) that contains patient ID, drug name, drug concentration, and drug dose. This information would then be passed to the controller where the controller 30 processor 46 would Para. 0039. Using either an embedded bar code reader 40 or a tethered 33 bar code scanner 34 forming a part of an Auto ID module 32 as shown in FIG. 2, the clinician would scan the patient ID bracelet. The scanned patient ID would be sent from the Auto ID module 32 to the controller thereby informing the controller that it is now associated with a particular patient.).
Claim 21 recites similar limitations to claim 1, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 21, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Batch as above.
Regarding claim 6, (Currently amended) Batch further taught the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: authenticating, based at least on the scannable token scanned at the one or more medical devices, an identity of a clinician interacting with the one or more medical devices (Para. 0020, 0038, 0040, 0048. Scanned and authorize clinician ID).
Regarding claim 7, (Original) Batch further taught the system of claim 6, wherein the scannable token comprises an additional authentication factor for authenticating the identity of the clinician interacting with the one or more medical devices (See Para. 0020, After identification device, clinician ID additionally needs to be verified by controller).
Regarding claim 20, (Currently amended) Batch further taught the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the scannable token being scanned at the one or more medical devices, sending, to the client device, one or more instructions, reminders, and/or feedback associated with the encounter (Para. 0042, 0062-0063.).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view of WO 2016/149624 A1 to Vesiktvi et al. (“Vesiktvi”).
Regarding claim 2. (Original) Batch did not but the analogous art Vesiktvi taught the system of claim 1, wherein the scannable token is associated with a limited lifespan, and wherein the scannable token expires upon the scannable token reaching an end of the limited lifespan without being scanned at the one or more medical devices (Para. 0027. a token may include an expiration time, after which the token may not be used to access content, features, etc. A token may include a lifespan indicating how long a token may be active after a specified time (such as time of receipt of the token), which, after an application determines that such a lifespan has expired, may render the token unable to access content, features, etc. Para. 0037. A token may include a token identifier, a token name, an application name, an expiry date and/or time, a lifespan, and/or the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Batch by including the idea of the scannable token is associated with a limited lifespan, and wherein the scannable token expires upon the scannable token reaching an end of the limited lifespan without being scanned at the one or more medical devices as taught by Vesiktvi in order to authorize the presentation and/or access to content and/or features (Vesiktvi, Para. 0017).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view Vesiktvi and in further view of US 2017/0186008 A1 to Pachouri et al. (“Pachouri”).
Regarding claim 3, (Original) Batch-Vesiktvi taught the system of claim 2, the combination did not but the analogous art Pachouri taught wherein the limited lifespan of the scannable token is extended in response to the scannable token being scanned a threshold quantity of times and/or at a threshold quantity of the one or more medical devices prior to the expiration of the scannable token (Para. 0063. The semi-static set of data may include an identifier that can be used to identify the account associated with the device (e.g., an account identifier such as a primary account number (PAN), an alternate account identifier such as a secondary PAN, or a token that is a substitute for an account identifier, etc.) ...The dynamic set of data… that has a limited lifespan and is repeatedly refreshed or replenished during the lifetime of an account. The dynamic set of data may be limited-use in the sense that the dynamic set of data can be used for only a limited time or a limited number of transactions, and may need to be renewed, refreshed, updated, or replenished when the dynamic set of data has exhausted its limited usage.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Batch and Vesiktvi by including the idea of the limited lifespan of the scannable token is extended in response to the scannable token being scanned a threshold quantity of times and/or at a threshold quantity of the one or more medical devices prior to the expiration of the scannable token as taught by Pachouri in order to provide enhanced security to conduct transitions (Pachouri, para. 0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 1) and any intervening claims (claims 2-3, 6-7).
Dependent claims 5, 9-16, and 18 would also be allowable due the dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2009/091676 A1 (Fitzsimons et al.): [0064] In alternate embodiments the banked enhancements or tokens may have a limited lifespan or otherwise be configured so as to decay or expire. For example, a banked progressive award enhancement or token may expire at the conclusion of a gaming session. Alternatively, the banked award enhancement or token may be available for only a limited or predetermined time. Gaming events may be used to adjust the lifetime of a banked enhancement, for example to increase or decrease the lifespan.
WO 2008/125997 A1 (Meschisen et al.): FIGURE 1 illustrates a system 10 for configuring multiple patient monitors 12 using a barcode scanner 14 that reads barcodes in order to simplify monitor configuration and improve patient privacy, in accordance with one or more embodiments described herein. Bedside patient monitors often include barcode readers which read barcodes on patient wristbands, pharmaceuticals, and the like.
US 2011/0307274 A1 (Thompson et al.): In some embodiments, capturing patient information may include reading a bar code formed on a wristband attached to a patient's wrist, and in response to reading the barcode, retrieving patient data from the EMR system 244. Para. 0044
US 20060242293 A1 (Russ et al.): an RFID tag may be utilized as the proximity detection device 27 in the low acuity monitor 28 and an RFID tag reader as the proximity detection device 31 in the high acuity monitor 29. The high acuity monitor 29 that incorporates an RFID tag reader 31 may be implemented to have a limited range in order to prevent errors in associating multiple devices with a single patient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights