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
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-18, and 21-25 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-1 and 15-16 are currently amended.
Claim 21-25 are newly added.
Claims 5-6, 9, and 19-20 are canceled and not considered at this time.
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 1-4, 7-8, 10-18, and 21-25 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 7, and 22-25 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8 and 10-14 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture as a computer-readable medium. Claims 15-21 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1 and 15, the limitations of determining a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device; receiving emergency vehicle location data; predicting, using the emergency vehicle location data, that the second device is for a first responder; and in response to determining the second device is within a threshold distance of the first device and predicting that the second device is for a first responder and based on the medical emergency, transmitting medical data for the person, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions. The steps of determining a device is within a threshold distance of another device, receiving emergency vehicle location data, predicting the second device is for a first responder, and transmitting medical data when the device is within a threshold distance is activity performed to exchange medical information between entities during a medical emergency which is the management of personal interactions which is part of patient care. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As per Claim 8, the limitations of in response to detecting that a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device, receiving a request indicating medical data is available , trigger a request for medical data, trigger a request for medical data, request the medical data, receiving medical data for the person in a medical emergency, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions. The steps of detecting a device is within a threshold distance of another device, requesting medical data and receiving a response to that request, and receiving medical data based on that determination is activity performed to exchange information between entities which is the management of personal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a first device of a person in a medical emergency, a second device, a non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions (claim 8), and a system comprising a computer and storage devices on which are stored instructions (claim 15). The first and second devices, non-transitory computer storage media, and computer and storage devices are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes receiving application programming interface information which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of receiving information is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of presenting the notification that includes a user interface element, receiving input that indicates selection of the user interface element, and causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device in response to receiving the medical data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of receiving data using an interface and presenting data on a user interface and display is mere data gathering and outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system including the first and second devices, non-transitory computer storage media, and computer and storage devices are recited at a high level of generality. The first and second devices and are recited as generic computer components by reciting personal computers, mobile communication device, and other devices (Specification, [0041]). The non-transitory computer storage media is described as computer programs (specification [0071]) and machine-readable storage device, storage substrate, a random or serial access memory device (specification [0071]. The computer and storage devices are described as a general purpose microprocessor or any other kind of central processing unit coupled to mass storage devices such as magnetic, magneto-optical disks, etc. (specification [0075]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of receiving application programming interface information, presenting the notification that includes a user interface element, receiving input that indicates selection of the user interface element, and causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device in response to receiving the medical data which are elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as presenting data, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added) and (iv) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2 and 16 include determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive medical data in response to detecting the second device and responsive to determining the second device is authenticated to receive medical data, transmit the medical data. These steps describe determining permission to access particular data and providing access to the data which is managing the interactions between people as the interchange of information is an exchange between two parties. This falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 3 and 17 include transmitting an authentication request message, in response receiving an authentication response message, and determining whether the authentication message is valid and the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data, which is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as claims 2 and 16. Claims 4 and 18 include determining whether an identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices and in response, transmit the medical data, which directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the determining an identifier is approved and transmitting the data to an approved entity is managing the exchange of data using the process of authenticating the entity. Claim 7 includes providing an audible notification that help is on the way base on the second device being for a first responder, which is recited broadly such that it amounts to data outputting as presenting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claims 10, 11, and 12 are similar to Claims 3 and 17 because they also describe the process of authenticating an entity for access to the medical data which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 13 merely describes an exchange of data which amounts to further specifying the certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 14 provides a description of the medical data which is directed to the same abstract idea as Claim 8. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 14-16, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), hereinafter Fernandez, in view of Cabanas et al (US 2023/0066525 A1), hereinafter Cabanas.
As per Claims 1 and 15, Fernandez discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform the method ([0074-0075]) comprising:
determining, by a first device of a person in a medical emergency, whether a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Cabanas: receiving application programming interface information that includes emergency vehicle location data ([0113] receive an indication of the current location of an emergency response device assigned to respond to the emergency, determined by device GPS positioning, etc.);
predicting, using the emergency vehicle location data, that the second device is for a first responder ([0136-0138] determine based on location data of emergency and location data of emergency response devices, one emergency response device which is optimal to be the selected emergency response device); and
in response to determining that the second device is within a threshold distance of the first device and predicting that the second device is for a first responder and based on the medical emergency, transmitting, to the second device, data for the person ([0139] based on the location of the emergency response device and prediction that the device is selected as first responder, send a notification to the device with information associated with the emergency including medical information for the user associated with the emergency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data to an identified first responder in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claims 2 and 16, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. Fernandez also teaches in response to detecting the second device, determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code),
wherein transmitting the medical data for the person is responsive to determining that the second device is authenticated to receive the data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Cabanas: the data for the person is medical data ([0139] information associated with the emergency includes medical information for a user associated with the emergency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 8, Fernandez discloses the limitations of one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations ([0074]) comprising:
in response to a first device detecting that a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device,
receiving, from the first device, a request for presentation of a notification by the second device that indicates that medical data is available for presentation, the first device of a person in a medical emergency ([0101-0102] civilian device, i.e. first device is operated by a person experiencing an emergency and emergency response device is operated by a first responder, the civilian device generates emergency information sent to emergency response; [0103] emergency alert sent to emergency response device; [0105] display a notification on the responder application of the emergency responder device, i.e. second device, see Fig. 7B where the notification is a request to present emergency data);
presenting, by the second device, the notification that includes a user interface element that triggers a request for the medical data ([0105] display a notification on the responder application of the emergency responder device, i.e. second device, including triggers for causing the responder device/application to receive additional information, see Fig. 7B where the notification is a request to present emergency data and also presenting a response option);
receiving input that indicates selection of the user interface element and triggers a request for the medical data ([0105] the emergency response device selects the open/reply on the display to trigger a request to display emergency alerts/messages related to the emergency, [0107] responder device includes interactive element which is interacted with to obtain additional emergency data, see Fig. 7B where replying Y results triggers data of the emergency);
requesting, from the first device, the medical data ([0107] responder device includes interactive element which is interacted with to obtain additional emergency data, [0133] responder device establishes a communication with the civilian device);
in response to requesting the medical data, receiving, by the second device and from the first device, the medical data for the person ([0115] medical data from the civilian device is sent to the emergency responder device for display including audio/text/video/images about the emergency situation/patient; [0139] sending information associated with the emergency to the emergency response device including medical information for a user associated with the emergency, see Fig. 7B/7C/7E where in response to the responder replying Y, emergency information is received at the responder device); and
in response to receiving the data, causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device ([0139] sending information associated with the emergency to the emergency response device including medical information for a user associated with the emergency, see Fig. 7B/7C/7E where in response to the responder replying Y, emergency information is received at the responder device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data to an identified first responder in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 10, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Fernandez also teaches requesting the medical data comprises authenticating the second device for access to the medical data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code); and
receiving the medical data is responsive to successfully completing the authentication of the second device for access to the medical data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code).
As per Claim 11, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 8. However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Cabanas: receiving, at the second device and prior to receiving the request for presentation, a push notification that alerts an application on the second device that data for an emergency situation is about to be received ([0105] push notification sent to the emergency response device, second device, to receive emergency data or additional data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of notifying a first responder of incoming medical data using a push notification from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 14, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Cabanas also teaches the medical data identifies the person, a geographic location of the person, and information about the medical emergency ([0048] emergency data includes location data, [0107]emergency data includes name, age, race, location of the person experiencing emergency, [0135] emergency information includes location, type of emergency) ([0046] information in the message includes information about the medical emergency including physiological parameters, time of health event; location of patient; [0048] message includes description of patient, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data including identity of person, location, and information about the emergency to an identified first responder in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 22, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Cabanas also teaches in response to determining that the second device is within a threshold distance of the first device and predicting that the second device is for a first responder and based on the medical emergency, transmitting, to the second device, a request for presentation of a notification by the second device that indicates that medical data is available for presentation ([0139] based on the location of the emergency response device and prediction that the device is selected as first responder, send a notification to the device with information associated with the emergency including medical information for the user associated with the emergency, see Fig. 7B where the interface presents a request to display a notification of medical data; [0101-0102] civilian device, i.e. first device is operated by a person experiencing an emergency and emergency response device is operated by a first responder, the civilian device generates emergency information sent to emergency response; [0103] emergency alert sent to emergency response device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data to an identified first responder in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 23, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 22. Cabanas also teaches transmitting, for presentation by the second device, the notification that includes a user interface element that triggers a request for the medical data (see Fig. 7B where the user interface element that triggers a request for medical data to be presented to the emergency responder device is sent to the user interface of the device, [0107]); and
receiving, from the second device, a request for the medical data, wherein transmitting the medical data for the person is responsive to receiving the request ([0107] responder device includes interactive element which is interacted with to obtain additional emergency data in which the data is received by the responder device, [0133] responder device establishes a communication with the civilian device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of receiving input from a user interface element to receive medical data in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 24, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 23. Cabanas also teaches wherein receiving the request for the medical data is responsive to receiving input, from the second device, that indicates selection of the user interface element and triggers a request for the medical data ([0105] the emergency response device selects the open/reply on the display to trigger a request to display emergency alerts/messages related to the emergency, [0107] responder device includes interactive element which is interacted with to obtain additional emergency data, see Fig. 7B where replying Y results triggers data of the emergency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in response to a request in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
As per Claim 25, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Cabanas also teaches causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device ([0139] sending information associated with the emergency to the emergency response device including medical information for a user associated with the emergency, see Fig. 7B/7C/7E where in response to the responder replying Y, emergency information is displayed at the responder device, [0150] user interface of the emergency management application displays notification of the emergency on the emergency response device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of presenting medical data to an identified first responder in the event of an emergency from Cabanas with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order to provide emergency service providers with the situational awareness needed to quickly provide the best emergency medical care to a patient (Cabanas [0004-0005]).
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), in view of Cabanas (US 2023/0066525 A1), in view of Spence (US 2010/0115609 A1), hereinafter Spence.
As per Claims 3 and 17, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 16. However, Fernandez and Cabanas may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data ([0041] authentication module to ensure medical data is accessed by authorized persons only) comprises:
transmitting, using a first instance of an application executing on the first device, an authentication request message to the second device ([0083-0084] when mobile user requests access, send a request for authentication to the mobile user based on user information in the user profile in memory);
in response to transmitting the authentication request message, receiving, from a second instance of the application executing on the second device, an authentication response message ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response); and
determining whether the authentication response message is valid and the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Cabanas in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claims 4 and 18, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 16. However, Fernandez and Cabanas may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data comprises determining whether an identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices ([0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user); and
transmitting the medical data for the person is responsive to determining that the identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user, see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Cabanas in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claim 12, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Fernandez also teaches in response to the first device detecting that the second device is within the threshold distance of the first device ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices).
However, Fernandez and Cabanas may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: transmitting, to a first instance of an application executing on the first device and by a second instance of the application executing on the second device, authentication information to enable the first instance of the application to determine whether the second instance of the application is authenticated ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response),
wherein receiving the medical data is responsive to the first instance of the application determining that the second instance of the application is authenticated ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Cabanas in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claim 13, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claim 8. However, Fernandez and Cabanas may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: transmitting, by the second device and to the first device, an identifier for the second device ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response),
wherein receiving the medical data is responsive to transmitting the identifier for the second device to the first device ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Cabanas in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), in view of Cabanas (US 2023/0066525 A1), in view of Zamora et al. (US 8,483,651 B1), hereinafter Zamora.
As per Claims 7 and 21, Fernandez and Cabanas discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. However, Fernandez and Cabanas may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Zamora: providing, in response to predicting that the second device is for a first responder, an audible notification that help is on the way (Col. 1:lines 30-31 provide notification to the mobile device; Col. 3:lines 67-Col.4:lines 1-4 notification sent to user as a vibration, light, text message, Bluetooth communication; Col. 8:lines 2-6 notification includes a differential ring, i.e. audible, or vibration; Examiner notes that the manner of notification vibration or audible is a matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining the location of an emergency vehicle and determining this is a first responder from Zamora with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Cabanas in order for a victim or other person with the victim to be informed of when responders will reach the victim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, “Section 101”, filed 05/08/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the 101 rejection without providing any reasoning as to how the claims provide eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection above addresses the new claim limitations, as presently amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-12, “Section 103”, filed 05/08/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cabanas.
Conclusion
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 Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights