Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 04/23/2026.
Claims 97, 100, 102, 106, 107, 112, 115, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128 and 137 have been amended. Claims 1-96, 105, 109-111, 113, 114, 119, 122, 123, 129-136, and 138-186 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 97-104, 106-108, 112, 115-118, 120, 121, 124-128, and 137 are presented in this office action.
Response to amendment/arguments
3. Applicant’s amendment with respect to the rejection of claims 97-104, 106-108, 112, 115-118, 120, 121, 124-128, and 137 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered. As a result the rejection has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claims, thus necessitated the new ground of rejection as 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
5. Claims 97, 99-104, 106, 107, 112, 124-126, 128 and 137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson; Rene (US 20200051675 A1) in view of Garcia; Marcos Del Puerto (US 20230274734 A1) and in further view of SHRIVASTAVA; Saurabh (US 20210279079 A1).
Regarding independent claim 97, Nelson; Rene (US 20200051675 A1) teaches, a system for locally validating an electronic patient care record (ePCR) (Paragraph [0089] , when the user indicates to the ePCR application 160 that the ePCR is complete, the ePCR application 160 may validate the ePCR according to the rule set. In this manner, the ePCR application 160 may confirm that the field values conform to the rule set), the system comprising: a server configured to receive a set of rules encoded in a first syntax (Paragraph [0089] The rule set may be, for example, but not limited to, a complete call rule set such as, but not limited to, a Schematron rule set. “Schematron” refers to a particular rule-based language and international standard for XML document validation (Examiner interprets standard set of rules as set of validation rules)),
at least a portion of the ePCR application to receive at least one ePCR data value via at least one user interface control (Paragraph [0024] The one or more processors can be further configured to receive input specifying values for unpopulated fields in the ePCR.),
and display a particular indication of whether the at least one ePCR data value is valid prior to the focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control (Paragraph [0089] discloses, displaying an indication if the field values conform to the rules by validating the ePCR before the user moves/ shifts away to the next page or closes the application).
Nelson et al fails to explicitly teach, parse the set of rules encoded in and communicate the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to a mobile computing device configured to store an ePCR application configured to execute the set of rules encoded in the second syntax; and the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to operate in an online mode, receive the set of rules encoded in the second syntax while operating in the online mode, shift to operate in an offline mode, execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode; execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode, at least a first portion of the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to validate the at least one ePCR data value prior to a focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control.
Garcia; Marcos Del Puerto (US 20230274734 A1) teaches, parse set of rules encoded in the first syntax into an intermediate representation of the set of rules, generate, from the intermediate representation, the set of rules encoded in a second syntax, wherein the second syntax (Paragraph [0057] discloses, parsing the rules from first syntax into intermediate representation of set of rules and intermediate representation/ executable code is provided to a processor for execution. Also see [0068], [0069] (Examiner interprets source code as first syntax and the executable code as second syntax Examiner interprets syntax analyzer as parser as taught in [0051]), [0055]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al by parse set of rules encoded in the first syntax into an intermediate representation of the set of rules, generate, from the intermediate representation, the set of rules encoded in a second syntax, wherein the second syntax is executable within an execution environment, as taught by Garcia et al (Paragraph [0057]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the syntax analysis that can be performed enhances the interpretation by providing information (e.g., hints, suggestions, or indication of other versions of the software application X 202) that can be used in cases where a received instruction cannot be successfully analyzed and thus cannot be executed, as taught by Garcia et al (Paragraph [0054]).
Nelson et al and Garcia et al fails to explicitly teach, and communicate the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to a mobile computing device configured to store an ePCR application configured to execute the set of rules encoded in the second syntax; and the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to operate in an online mode, receive the set of rules encoded in the second syntax while operating in the online mode, shift to operate in an offline mode, execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode; execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode, at least a first portion of the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to validate the at least one ePCR data value prior to a focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control.
SHRIVASTAVA; Saurabh (US 20210279079 A1) teaches, and communicate the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to a mobile computing device configured to store an ePCR application configured to execute the set of rules encoded in the second syntax (Paragraph [0039] a custom rule is one or more of a validation rule and a business logic rule. In one embodiment, custom rules are scripts (written for example, in JavaScript) composed in mobile application composer 220 for execution by the mobile application server system 105 and/or mobile application client 170. Also see [0068]. ePCR is taught by Nelson et al (Paragraph [0089]));
and the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to operate in an online mode, receive the set of rules encoded in the second syntax while operating in the online mode (Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0037]-[0040] discloses, receiving the validation rule set when the client system is online/ connected to the server. Also see [0068]),
shift to operate in an offline mode, execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode (Paragraphs [0074], [0075] discloses, based on state of network connection, operating in offline mode. Also see [0127]);
at least a portion of the ePCR application to receive at least one ePCR data value via at least one user interface control, execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode (Paragraph [0076] Following process block 525, mobile application client instance 170 is operating in the offline mode 530. At process block 535, while the mobile application client instance is operating in the offline mode 530, the processor accepts a user input to the instance of the mobile application client that triggers enforcement of the custom rule), at least a first portion of the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to validate the at least one ePCR data value prior to a focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control (Fig. 13, Paragraph [0128] Without the inventive systems and methods discussed herein, the mobile application client instance 170 would not be able to enforce the “revenue field required” validation rule. But, because the application client instance 170 is configured in accordance with the systems and methods described herein (referring to inset 1330) selection of the building vision button 1335 to change the sales stage field value to 3 while no revenue amount has been entered results in enforcement of the validation rule, and a rejection of the change, as shown in inset 1340. (Examiner interprets prior to a focus of the application shifting away from the at least one user interface control as before the application moves to next user interface/page or the application is completed/ saved) ePCR is taught by Nelson et al (Paragraph [0089])),
SHRIVASTAVA et al also teaches, and display a particular indication of whether the at least one ePCR data value is valid prior to the focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control (Figs 13, 14 and related paragraphs discloses, displaying an indication of an success or error message based on data value being valid or invalid before shifting/ moving away from the present user interface).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al and Garcia et al by communicating the standard set of rules encoded in the second syntax to a mobile computing device configured to store an ePCR application configured to execute the set of rules encoded in the second syntax; and the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to operate in an online mode, receive the set of rules encoded in the second syntax while operating in the online mode, shift to operate in an offline mode, execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode; execute, within the execution environment while operating in the offline mode, at least a first portion of the set of rules encoded in the second syntax to validate the at least one ePCR data value prior to a focus of the ePCR application shifting away from the at least one user interface control, as taught by SHRIVASTAVA et al (Paragraphs [0037]-[0040], [0076]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the performance of the mobile application system itself is improved in several ways by the systems and methods described herein: (i) mobile application clients can operate with all custom features enabled even when a network connection to the mobile application server is unavailable; (ii) enforcement of a custom rule is immediate, rather than delayed; (iii) invalid data is prevented from entering the mobile application database server by enforcing custom rules as the data is entered, (iv) server-side data processing on synchronization after network connectivity is restored is far more efficient because the custom rules are already applied on the client side, and need not be performed on the server side during sync operations as taught by SHRIVASTAVA et al (Paragraph [0156]).
Regarding dependent claim 99, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 98.
Nelson et al further teaches, wherein the execution environment comprises a browser or a browser container (Paragraph [0074] [0074] The computing device 104 may include the ePCR application 160 stored in the memory and executable by the processor. Alternatively or additionally, the memory of the computing device 104 may store a browser, or some other execution environment, configured to receive and render the ePCR interface from a webserver or other cloud-based server(s) (e.g., the server(s) 128)).
Regarding dependent claim 100, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 97.
Garcia et al further teaches, wherein the particular indication comprises a corrective prompt (Paragraph [0047] discloses, providing an indication for fixing or solving the issues).
SHRIVASTAVA et al also further teaches, wherein the particular indication comprises a corrective prompt (Figs, 13, 14 and related paragraphs discloses, displaying a corrective prompt).
Regarding dependent claim 101, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 97.
SHRIVASTAVA et al also further teaches, wherein the ePCR application is configured to validate and lock the ePCR regardless of a state of connection of the mobile computing device (Paragraph [0020] Systems and methods are described herein for custom validations and scripts for mobile applications that can be that can be run in the mobile application regardless of whether the mobile application is being run in online or offline mode. ePCR is taught by Nelson et al (Paragraph [0089]))..
Regarding dependent claim 102, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 97.
Nelson et al further teaches, wherein: the mobile computing device comprises at least one memory; at least one network interface; at least one user interface device; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one network interface, and the at least one user interface device, the at least one processor configured to implement the ePCR application to cause the mobile computing device to provide, at the at least one user interface device, an ePCR user interface comprising the at least one user interface control (Fig. 4B), the ePCR user interface being configured to capture a plurality of data values for the ePCR, the ePCR comprising a plurality of data fields (Paragraph [0004] discloses, user interface is configured to capture entries for data fields),
receive the plurality of data values comprising the at least one ePCR data value via the ePCR user interface, each data value corresponding to a respective data field of the plurality of data fields, in response to receiving each data value, validate the data value at the mobile computing device, wherein to validate the data value comprises to apply at least a second portion of the set of rules to an input to at least one of the data fields as the data values are received and prior to completion of data entry and locking of the ePCR (Paragraph [0089] the ePCR application 160 may validate the ePCR according to the rule set. In this manner, the ePCR application 160 may confirm that the field values conform to the rule set. The rule set may ensure that the generated ePCR is logical and/or complete.),
SHRIVASTAVA et al teaches, retrieve an electronic validation file from the at least one memory (Paragraph [0167] discloses, accessing validation file from memory. Also see [0051],[0169]),
generate a plurality of validation results based on validations of the data values, and provide indications of the validation results at the ePCR user interface, the indications comprising the particular indication of whether the at least one ePCR data value is valid (Figs 13, 14 and related paragraphs discloses, displaying an indication of an success or error message based on data value being valid or invalid. ePCR is taught by Nelson et al (Paragraph [0089])).
Regarding dependent claim 103, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
SHRIVASTAVA et al et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to locally validate the data value at the mobile computing device (Paragraph [0053] FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of a method 300 associated with implementing custom validation and business logic (custom rule) scripting. In one embodiment, the method 300 is a computer-implemented method for enabling client-side enforcement of custom rules in offline mode. Also see [0056], [0127]).
Regarding dependent claim 104, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 103.
SHRIVASTAVA et al et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: locally validate the data value at the mobile computing device while the at least one network interface is in a state of disconnection from a network configured to communicatively couple the mobile computing device to a remote server (Paragraph [0127] FIG. 13 illustrates an example client GUI 1300 for a mobile application client instance 170 associated with implementing custom validation and business logic (custom rule) scripting during offline-mode operations. Mobile application client instance 170 is operating in offline mode. This is confirmed by cellular signal indicator 1305 and WI-FI signal indicator 1310, each of which indicate no signal, and therefore no network connectivity between the mobile application client instance 170 and mobile application server system 105. Also see [0053], [0056]).
Regarding dependent claim 106, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 104.
SHRIVASTAVA et al et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive locking input instructing the at least one processor to lock the ePCR; and lock the ePCR in response to reception of the locking input while the at least one network interface is in the state of disconnection (Paragraph [0075] The processor then configures the mobile application client instance 170 to commence accessing and manipulating a local copy of that data locally within the mobile application runtime 240. The processor also configures the mobile application client instance 170 to commence persisting the sequence of changes to data locally on the mobile device 120 for later synchronization with server side data store 135 when offline mode 530 ends and interactions with the mobile application server system 105 resume. This may be referred to as referred to as “offline write” or “deferred write access.” (Examiner interprets locking is persisting the data locally while offline before it can be synchronized with a central database when connectivity is restored)).
Regarding dependent claim 107, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
Garcia et al further teaches, wherein: the electronic validation file comprises the set of rules encoded in the second syntax according to which the ePCR application is coded based on a conversion from the set of rules encoded according to the a-first syntax, wherein the first syntax is incompatible with local validation (Paragraph [0058] discloses, validation file comprises the corrected/ suggestions/ hints in case the first syntax is incompatible with local validation).
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein the first syntax is incompatible with local validation (Paragraphs [0056], [0057] discloses, the local validation rule are converted/ written in second/ JavaScript language/ syntax and is installed and is compatible with the client device environment. Therefore, the first/ schematron syntax is not compatible with local validation).
and wherein the local validation comprises a validation performed while the at least one network interface is in a state of disconnection from a network configured to communicatively couple the mobile computing device to a remote server (Paragraph [0127] FIG. 13 illustrates an example client GUI 1300 for a mobile application client instance 170 associated with implementing custom validation and business logic (custom rule) scripting during offline-mode operations. Mobile application client instance 170 is operating in offline mode. This is confirmed by cellular signal indicator 1305 and WI-FI signal indicator 1310, each of which indicate no signal, and therefore no network connectivity between the mobile application client instance 170 and mobile application server system 105).
Regarding dependent claim 112, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to validate a particular data value provided in response to an indication of a validation error (see Fig. 13, Paragraph [0128] The custom rule script requires that a value be entered in the revenue amount field in order to advance the sales stage beyond opportunity (stage 2) 1315 to building vision (stage 3) 1320. Without the inventive systems and methods discussed herein, the mobile application client instance 170 would not be able to enforce the “revenue field required” validation rule. But, because the application client instance 170 is configured in accordance with the systems and methods described herein (referring to inset 1330) selection of the building vision button 1335 to change the sales stage field value to 3 while no revenue amount has been entered results in enforcement of the validation rule, and a rejection of the change, as shown in inset 1340).
Regarding dependent claim 124, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
Nelson et al further teaches, wherein the set of rules are applicable to determine whether the ePCR complies with a National Emergency Medical Services Information System(Paragraph [0089] discloses, rule set comprises validation rule set).
Regarding dependent claim 125, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 124.
Nelson et al further teaches, wherein the set of (Paragraph [0054], [0055] discloses, the validation rules related/ complies with National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) standard) .
Regarding dependent claim 126, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein the set of rules specifies at least one message to be displayed if at least one validation result indicates at least one invalid value within at least one data field (Paragraph [0060] (3) performing field validation actions, for example, checking that a close-date is greater than ‘today,’ checking that Revenue=Quantity * Amount−Discount, or checking that a revenue amount is greater than a value specified in the logic; (4) conditionally enabling and/or disabling buttons (such as the “save” button, for example) based on one or more values entered in fields or based on validation actions performed on the fields).
Regarding dependent claim 128, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: store the validation results in the at least one memory; detect an inability to establish a connection to a remote server via the at least one network interface; wait for a timeout period; establish, after the timeout period, the connection to the remote server via the at least one network interface; and upload the validation results to the remote server (See Fig. 5, Paragraph [0075] discloses, storing the validation results locally on the client mobile device and synchronizing the validated data with a central database when connection with the server is restored).
Regarding dependent claim 137, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein to apply the at least the second portion of the set of rules comprises to implement code stored in the electronic validation file (Paragraph [0125] [0125] Thus, using a GUI interface to rule/script editor 405, an administrator or authorized user of the mobile application system can configure the mobile application system to match business requirements by writing custom JavaScript scripts that enforce validations and rules during both online and offline).
6. Claims 98 and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson; Rene (US 20200051675 A1) in view of Garcia; Marcos Del Puerto (US 20230274734 A1), SHRIVASTAVA; Saurabh (US 20210279079 A1) and in further view of de Cerqueira Gatti; Maira Athanazio (US 20130086100 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 98, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 97.
Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein: the first syntax is a Schematron syntax; and the second syntax is a JAVASCRIPT syntax.
de Cerqueira Gatt et al teaches, wherein: the first syntax is a Schematron syntax; and the second syntax is a JAVASCRIPT syntax (Paragraphs [0034], [0036] discloses, converting the schematron based on set of rules into JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). (Based on specification (Paragraph [0100] The second syntax may be a JAVASCRIPT syntax, or other syntax associated with a programming language compatible with (for example, capable of expressing executable rules translated, e.g., transpiled, from) the first syntax (for example, either with Schematron, or with another rule- based validation language). Therefore, examiner interprets, schematron as first syntax/ rule based validation language and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as second syntax which is compatible in executing the rule based validation language/ first syntax)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al by providing wherein: the first syntax is a Schematron syntax; and the second syntax is a JAVASCRIPT syntax as taught by de Cerqueira Gatti et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by Converting Schematron to JavaScript (or using a JS-based processor) offers benefits like native web/Node.js execution, easier integration with modern web apps, leveraging JS debugging, and potentially faster performance for certain tasks, while retaining Schematron's powerful, descriptive rule-based validation for richer diagnostics than pure grammar-based checks, as taught by de Cerqueira Gatti et al (Paragraphs [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding dependent claim 108, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 107.
de Cerqueira Gatt et al further teaches, wherein the first syntax is a Schematron syntax and the second syntax is a JAVASCRIPT syntax (Paragraphs [0034], [0036] discloses, converting the schematron based on set of rules into JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). (Based on specification (Paragraph [0100] The second syntax may be a JAVASCRIPT syntax, or other syntax associated with a programming language compatible with (for example, capable of expressing executable rules translated, e.g., transpiled, from) the first syntax (for example, either with Schematron, or with another rule- based validation language). Therefore, examiner interprets, schematron as first syntax/ rule based validation language and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as second syntax which is compatible in executing the rule based validation language/ first syntax)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al by providing wherein: the first syntax is a Schematron syntax; and the second syntax is a JAVASCRIPT syntax as taught by de Cerqueira Gatti et al (Paragraph [0036]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by Converting Schematron to JavaScript (or using a JS-based processor) offers benefits like native web/Node.js execution, easier integration with modern web apps, leveraging JS debugging, and potentially faster performance for certain tasks, while retaining Schematron's powerful, descriptive rule-based validation for richer diagnostics than pure grammar-based checks, as taught by de Cerqueira Gatti et al (Paragraphs [0034]-[0036]).
7. Claims 115-118, 120 and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson; Rene (US 20200051675 A1) in view of Garcia; Marcos Del Puerto (US 20230274734 A1), SHRIVASTAVA; Saurabh (US 20210279079 A1) and in further view of Berrigan, Rebecca (US 20030212740 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 115, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 102.
Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the at least one processor is configured to iteratively update the indications of the validation results in response to receiving each data value.
Berrigan, Rebecca (US 20030212740 A1) teach, wherein the at least one processor is configured to iteratively update the indications of validation results in response to receiving each data value (Fig. 7 and related paragraphs discloses, iteratively updating and validating the results).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al by providing wherein the at least one processor is configured to iteratively update the indications of validation results in response to receiving each data value, as taught by Berrigan et al (Fig. 7 and related paragraphs).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, would result in a decrease in time and effort necessary for a user 102 to enter data and efficiently validate data entered into a field within a user interface as taught by Berrigan et al (Paragraph [0055], [0013]).
Regarding dependent claim 116, Nelson et al, Garcia et al, SHRIVASTAVA et al and Berrigan et al teach, the system of claim 115.
SHRIVASTAVA et al further teaches, wherein the indications of the validation results comprise instructions for fixing a validation error.
Berrigan et al further teaches, wherein the indications of the validation results comprise instructions for fixing a validation error (See fig. 8, Paragraph [0057] If at least some of the data entered has previously been found to be invalid, control flows to step 610 wherein the user 102 is directed to the fields corresponding to the entered data which was found to be invalid. Then, control flows back to step 604 and the user 102 corrects the incorrect fields. In this fashion, the user 102 continues to enter data in the data entry fields until all of the entered data is found to be valid. In step 616, the control flow ceases).
Regarding dependent claim 117, Nelson et al, Garcia et al, SHRIVASTAVA et al and Berrigan et al teach, the system of claim 115.
Berrigan et al further teaches, wherein the indications of the validation results comprise an error control configured to: indicate a number of the validation results associated with a particular data set section of the ePCR, and in response to a user selection of the error control, indicate the validation results associated with the particular data set section of the ePCR (See Fig. 8, and related paragraphs. ePCR is taught by Nelson et al (Paragraph [0089])).
Regarding dependent claim 118, Nelson et al, Garcia et al, SHRIVASTAVA et al and Berrigan et al teach, the system of claim 115.
Berrigan et al further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide the indications of the validation results at the ePCR user interface in proximity to controls of the ePCR user interface associated with the validation results (See Fig 8 shows the indication of validation results at the user interface is in proximity the data fields).
Regarding dependent claim 120, Nelson et al, Garcia et al, SHRIVASTAVA et al and Berrigan et al teach, the system of claim 115.
Berrigan et al further teaches, wherein the indications of the validation results comprise an access control configured to: indicate a validation error associated with a particular data field of the plurality of data fields; and navigate, in response to a user selection of the access control, the ePCR user interface to a data set section associated with the particular data field (See Fig. 8 and related paragraphs discloses, identifying the error and accessing/ navigating the particular field to correct the input field).
Regarding dependent claim 121, Nelson et al, Garcia et al, SHRIVASTAVA et al and Berrigan et al teach, the system of claim 115.
Berrigan et al further teaches, wherein the indications of the validation results comprise an access control configured to: indicate a validation error associated with a particular data field of the plurality of data fields; and receive, in response to a user selection of the access control, a new data value to store in the particular data field (See Figs 7, 8 Paragraph [0057] at least some of the data entered has previously been found to be invalid, control flows to step 610 wherein the user 102 is directed to the fields corresponding to the entered data which was found to be invalid. Then, control flows back to step 604 and the user 102 corrects the incorrect fields. In this fashion, the user 102 continues to enter data in the data entry fields until all of the entered data is found to be valid. In step 616, the control flow ceases).
8. Claims 127 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson; Rene (US 20200051675 A1) in view of Garcia; Marcos Del Puerto (US 20230274734 A1), SHRIVASTAVA; Saurabh (US 20210279079 A1) and in further view of Ozeran; Jonathan (US 20200279623).
Regarding dependent claim 127, Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al teach, the system of claim 126.
Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the at least one message comprises at least one custom message specified by a healthcare provider
Ozeran; Jonathan (US 20200279623) teaches, wherein the at least one message comprises at least one custom message specified by a healthcare provider (Paragraph [0032] discloses, at least one message is specified by the healthcare provider. Also see [0123])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Nelson et al, Garcia et al and SHRIVASTAVA et al by providing wherein the at least one message comprises at least one custom message specified by a healthcare provider, as taught by Ozeran et al (Paragraph [0032]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so provides automated quality assurance testing of structured clinical data derived from raw data or other, differently-structured data as taught by Ozeran et al (Paragraph [0008]).
Closest Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Albers; Michael C. (US 7251782 B1) For validating user input fields in a graphical user interface, a data entry field includes a graphical validation indicator. In response to user activation of the validation indicator, such as by hovering with an on-screen pointer, a message is displayed in visual association with the data entry field. The message describes one or more expected characteristics of the data to be entered, for example that the data is numerical. As the user enters data consistent with the expected characteristics, the validation indicator is displayed with a neutral appearance, indicating that no errors have been detected. If incorrect data is detected, the validation indicator takes on an emphasized appearance, such as a higher intensity and/or an error-indicating color such as red, providing an immediate error indication to the user. An error message may also be displayed in visual association with the data entry field. The error message is preferably displayed with an emphasized appearance, and may specifically identify the error in the entered data.
10. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights