Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-19 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 12, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,436. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent claim a computer system for: receiving patient data from one or more medical devices; storing the patient data on a centralised patient data database; receiving a request from a third-party to access the patient data; verifying that the request access information corresponds to one or more of the plurality of separate instances of patient knowledge; and granting the third-party access to the patient data stored on the centralised patient data database in response to the request access information corresponding to one or more of the plurality of separate instances of patient knowledge.
The patent further claims keying the patient data against a plurality of separate instances of patient knowledge associated with a patient such that any one of the plurality of separate instances of patient knowledge can be utilized to gain access to the patient data, the request comprising request access information based on one or more identification items associated with the patient. The instant application claims comparing and providing, while the patent used verifying and granting. The end results are similar and would have been obvious in order to guarantee the proper patient data was obtained and provided to an authorized third party requestor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhoble (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0119290).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Dhoble teaches a system for providing access to centralised patient data captured from one or more medical devices across an open network to a third party comprising: a computer system for: receiving patient data from the one or more medical devices (paragraph 0034); storing the patient data on a centralised patient data database (paragraph 0036); receiving a request from the third party to access the centralised patient data database, the request comprising request access information, the request access information being associated with an access level (paragraph 0049 and 0086); comparing the request access information with stored access information in an access information database (paragraph 0057); and providing the third party access to a set of the patient data corresponding to the access level in response to the request access information corresponding to the stored access information in the access information database (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Dhoble teaches wherein the patient data is associated with the stored access information (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 4, Dhoble teaches wherein the stored access information is related to the respective medical device the patient data is received from (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Dhoble teaches wherein the patient data is associated with multiple different instances of stored access information (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Dhoble teaches wherein the set of the patient data corresponding to the access level comprises the patient data associated with stored access information that corresponds to the request access information (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 7, Dhoble teaches wherein the third party is associated with a security level (paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 8, Dhoble teaches wherein a full trust security level further requires the third party to provide a unique key (paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 9, Dhoble teaches wherein the unique key comprises an API key used for authentication (paragraph 0120).
Regarding claim 10, Dhoble teaches wherein the full trust security level provides the third party access to the patient data received from any of the one or more medical devices (paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 11, Dhoble teaches wherein a partial trust security level further requires the third party to provide a physical key (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 12, Dhoble teaches wherein the partial trust security level provides the third party access to the patient data received from the one or more medical devices associated with the physical key (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 13, Dhoble teaches wherein the patient data is received via any one or more of the following modes: GSM transmission; mobile and/or telephone transmission; VOIP transmission; modem transmission; wifi transmission; ethernet transmission; website data upload; and wireless protocol transmission (paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 14, Dhoble teaches wherein the patient data is received via a removable memory device configured to be used with a kiosk, the kiosk configured to communicate with the computer system (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 15, Dhoble teaches wherein providing the third party access to the set of the patient data comprises the computer system providing a copy of the set of the patient data to the third party (paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 16, Dhoble teaches wherein the stored access information is hashed (paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 17, Dhoble teaches wherein the request access information is hashed (paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 18, Dhoble teaches wherein the access level associated with the request access information is based on identification information related to one or more patients (paragraph 0048).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights