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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the communication filed on 03/10/2025. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2007/0061590 A1 (hereinafter Boye et al.) in view of US 2023/0207091 A1 (hereinafter Joyce et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Boye et al. teaches an information processing system (note para. [0037]: Integrated Verification Authority Network System, IVAN system 10) comprising:
biometric information acquisition means (note figure 2.600: enrollment process; para. [0026]: biometric service server; para. [0037]: system 10) for acquiring biometric information of a user (note para. [0026], [0037], [0046]: biometric specimen collection means);
authentication processing means (note figure 2.800: identity authentication process) for authenticating (note para. [0037] – [0038], [0046]: user identity authentication/ biometric verification process);
first storage means (note para. [0026], [0037]: storage for biometric templates) for storing the biometric information of (note para. [0017], [0026], [0037]: storage of biometric templates/ verification data associated with the user);
trace information generation means (note figure 1.200: authentication server; para. [0026], [0078] : template, biometric specimen generation means) for
trace information acquisition means (note figure 2.600: enrollment process; para. [0026]: biometric service server; para. [0037]: system 10) for acquiring the (note para. [0078], [0079); and
verification processing means (note figure 2.800: authentication process; para. [0078]: authentication server) for performing a verification process on the (note para. [0078], [0079]: verification of biometric specimen)
Boye et al fails to teach expressly generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means and generating signed trace information containing the signature information; and performing a verification process on the signature information of the signed trace information acquired by the trace information acquisition means.
However, Joyce et al teaches generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the patient authenticated (note para. [0023], [0087], [0112], [0127]: generating signed vaccine certificate or care item based on pathogen information) by the authentication processing means and generating signed trace information containing the signature information (note para. [0087], [0108], [0127]); and performing a verification process on the signature information of the signed trace information acquired by the trace information acquisition means (note para. [0023], [0108], [0127]: verifying vaccine certificate generated based on patient’s medical/ biometric information)
Boye et al. and Joyce et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of managing and verifying patient’s medical data. Therefore, before the filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Boye et al. method to further include the features of generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means and generating signed trace information containing the signature information; and performing a verification process on the signature information of the signed trace information acquired by the trace information acquisition means in order to provide users an enhanced and secure mechanism for preventing unauthorized access to patient specific pathogen/ patient care information by utilizing a signature/ cryptographic verification (note Joyce et al., para. [0087], [0127])
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Joyce et al. teaches the information processing system wherein the signed trace information generated by the trace information generation means is attached to a vaccine or a therapeutic agent generated based on a specimen taken from the patient (note Joyce et al., para. [0087], [0127])
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Joyce et al. teaches the information processing system according to wherein the verification processing means performs the verification process before the vaccine or therapeutic agent is administered to the patient (note Joyce et al., para. [0060], [0087], [0127]: patent identification/ verification during drug administration)
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Joyce et al. teaches the information processing system wherein the vaccine or the therapeutic agent is a personalized vaccine or a personalized therapeutic agent for the patient (note para. [0060], [0106]: administering patient specific drugs)
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Joyce et al. teaches the information processing system wherein the trace information is information displayed in a form that can be read by a reader device (note para. [0111], [0114]: reader/ scanner)
Regarding claim 8, Boye et al. teaches an information processing method comprising:
acquiring biometric information of a user (note para. [0026], [0037], [0046]: biometric specimen collection means);
authenticating (note para. [0037] – [0038], [0046]: user identity authentication/ biometric verification process);
storing the biometric information of the authenticated (note para. [0017], [0026], [0037]: storage of biometric templates/ verification data associated with the user);
acquiring the generated
performing a verification process on the (note para. [0078], [0079]: verification of biometric specimen)
Boye et al fails to teach expressly generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the authenticated patient and generating signed trace information containing the signature information; and performing a verification process on the signature information of the acquired signed trace information.
However, Joyce et al teaches generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the authenticated patient (note para. [0023], [0087], [0112], [0127]: generating signed vaccine certificate or care item based on pathogen information) and generating signed trace information containing the signature information (note para. [0087], [0108], [0127]); and performing a verification process on the signature information of the acquired signed trace information (note para. [0023], [0108], [0127]: verifying vaccine certificate generated based on patient’s medical/ biometric information)
Boye et al. and Joyce et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of managing and verifying patient’s medical data. Therefore, before the filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Boye et al. method to further include the features of generating signature information of the patient based on the biometric information of the authenticated patient and generating signed trace information containing the signature information; and performing a verification process on the signature information of the acquired signed trace information in order to provide users an enhanced and secure mechanism for preventing unauthorized access to patient specific pathogen/ patient care information by utilizing a signature/ cryptographic verification (note Joyce et al., para. [0087], [0127])
Regarding claim 9, Boye et al. teaches an information processing system comprising:
biometric information acquisition means (note figure 2.600: enrollment process; para. [0026]: biometric service server; para. [0037]: system 10) for acquiring biometric information of a user (note para. [0026], [0037], [0046]: biometric specimen collection means);
authentication processing means (note figure 2.800: identity authentication process) for authenticating (note para. [0037] – [0038], [0046]: user identity authentication/ biometric verification process);
first storage means (note para. [0026], [0037]: storage for biometric templates) for storing the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means in association with identification information (note para. [0017], [0026], [0037]: storage of biometric templates/ verification data associated with the user);
trace information generation means (note figure 1.200: authentication server; para. [0026], [0078] : template, biometric specimen generation means) for generating trace information (note para. [0078, [0079);
trace information acquisition means (note figure 2.600: enrollment process; para. [0026]: biometric service server; para. [0037]: system 10) for acquiring the trace information generated by the trace information generation means (note para. [0078], [0079); and
verification processing means (note figure 2.800: authentication process; para. [0078]: authentication server) for performing a verification process for verifying matching between the identification information of the trace information acquired by the trace information acquisition means and identification information corresponding to the biometric information (note para. [0078], [0079]: verification of biometric specimen)
Boye et al fails to teach expressly generating trace information of the patient containing the identification information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means; and generating identification information corresponding to the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means.
However, Joyce et al teaches generating trace information of the patient containing the identification information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means (note para. [0023], [0087], [0112], [0127]: generating signed vaccine certificate or care item based on pathogen information); and generating identification information corresponding to the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means (note para. [0023], [0108], [0127]: verifying vaccine certificate generated based on patient’s medical/ biometric information)
Boye et al. and Joyce et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of managing and verifying patient’s medical data. Therefore, before the filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Boye et al. method to further include the features of generating trace information of the patient containing the identification information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means; and generating identification information corresponding to the biometric information of the patient authenticated by the authentication processing means in order to provide users an enhanced and secure mechanism for preventing unauthorized access to patient specific pathogen/ patient care information by utilizing a signature/ cryptographic verification (note Joyce et al., para. [0087], [0127])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights