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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 06/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 26, 28-38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamp et al. (US 20100082371 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kamp.
With respect to claim 21 Kamp discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising: executing a program for managing a plurality of medical conditions, the program comprising a consent module for managing access to patient specific information; (Kamp Abstract and Fig. 1A illustrates system comprising medical management with permission module for accessing patient specific information).
defining a plurality of user identities (IDs) within the program; (Kamp ¶32 teaches using user login data, understood as IDs and passwords, with defined roles to access patient information).
defining a plurality of user roles within the program; (Kamp ¶32 teaches defined user roles to access patient data. See also Kamp Fig. 1A 156n “permission level”).
assigning each of the plurality of user IDs to one or more of the plurality of user roles; (Kamp ¶32 teaches defined user roles to access patient data).
assigning a permission level to each of the plurality of user roles, the permission level defining access rights to the patient specific information; (Kamp ¶32 and Fig. 1A 156n teach assigned “permission level” to the users to access patient data).
receiving a request to transmit the patient specific information to an external device, the request associated with a first user ID; (Kamp ¶32 teaches receiving user login (understood as ID and password) and request for patient data on user client device B).
and in response to receiving the request: determining the user role assigned to the first user ID; (Kamp ¶32 in response to the request “match the user's role 158A to a permission level 156n”).
and determining that the permission level assigned to the user role of the first user ID permits access rights to the requested patient specific information, and in response, transmitting the requested patient specific information to the external device. (Kamp ¶31-32 teach different angles to this limitation, one of them is “If the user's role 158A is not identified, or the client B is not properly logged in, client B [external device] may be denied access to the patient's data. If login is successful, but none of the patient's privacy flag 154n or code identifier 152n are found in the mapping database 150B', only the least restrictive level 5 permission level may be used [determined permission level] by the configurable rule engine 112.” See also Kamp ¶41).
With respect to claims 38 and 40, the claims recite a non-transitory and device claim. While the claims might have slight difference in language they recite similar matter to claim 1 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 23 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the patient specific information is health related data. (Kamp Abstract teaches the information is “healthcare information”).
With respect to claim 24 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising revoking a permission level assigned to a first role of the plurality of user roles. (Kamp ¶36 “practitioner with a permission level 2 may be reconfigured to have a permission level 1” which means level 2 permission is revoked to only level 1).
With respect to claim 26 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising assigning a permission level to a particular user ID of the plurality of user IDs. (Kamp ¶36 teaches assigning a permission level 2 or 1 for example to a user of a plurality of users).
With respect to claim 28 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising providing a consent template linking a first role of the plurality of user roles with a predefined permission level. (Kamp Fig. 1B illustrates a consent template of roles and permission levels).
With respect to claim 29 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of user roles are selected from a list comprising at least two of patient, physician, guardian, pharmacist or dashboard viewer. (Kamp Fig. 1B illustrates at least “primary practitioner” and “insurance provider”, which are similar to physician and pharmacist or dashboard viewer)
With respect to claim 30 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 29, wherein a patient is deemed to be the sole owner of all patient specific information. (Kamp ¶32 teaches HIPAA compliance of sharing patient data, which gives the patient ownership of their information).
With respect to claim 31 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 30, wherein the patient is the only user that can assign consent to other users and/or roles. (Kamp ¶28 teaches “each of the parsed, code identified, and categorized biographical and or clinical data 104A may be mapped to a patient privacy flag 154n to indicate the level of privacy protection to the patient's data.” The patient privacy flag seems to be patients flagging of their private data so only users with high level of access can access them or not be allowed to view them based on the privacy protection rules as understood by the examiner from reading the prior art).
With respect to claim 32 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the patient specific information is categorized into different sensitivity levels. (Kamp ¶28 “multi-tiered permission level 156n may indicate the level of restriction of the patient's mapped and categorized biographical and/or clinical data entries 104C”).
With respect to claim 33 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the patient specific information comprises a plurality of resources and wherein the method further comprises assigning access rights to a subset of the plurality of resources and wherein assigning a permission level comprises granting access to the subset of the plurality of resources. (Kamp ¶28 “multi-tiered [subset] permission level 156n may indicate the level of restriction of the patient's mapped and categorized biographical and/or clinical data entries 104C”).
With respect to claim 34 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 33, wherein a first resource of the plurality of resources comprises information identifying a user and a second resource of the plurality of resources comprises one or more journal entries. (Kamp ¶38 teaches the accessible resources comprise document [Journal] and patient identifying data).
With respect to claim 35 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 33, wherein each resource comprises a plurality of information fields. (Kamp ¶38 teaches a resource could comprise multiple fields such as patient name and SSN … etc.).
With respect to claim 36 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 35, further comprising granting access to a subset of the plurality of information fields within a resource. (Kamp ¶28 “multi-tiered [subset] permission level 156n may indicate the level of restriction of the patient's mapped and categorized biographical and/or clinical data entries 104C”).
With respect to claim 37 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 36, wherein the information fields comprise a username, a user address, a medicament and an injection device type. (Kamp ¶28 “multi-tiered [subset] permission level 156n may indicate the level of restriction of the patient's mapped and categorized biographical and/or clinical data entries 104C [medicament and an injection device type]”. Additionally, Kamp ¶38 teaches a resource could comprise multiple fields such as patient name [username] and SSN [address]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 22 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamp as applied to claims 21, 23-24, 26, 28-38 and 40 above, and further in view of Brown (US 20090138283 A1) hereinafter referred to as Brown.
With respect to claim 22 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the method further comprises:
Kamp does not explicitly disclose: generating a notification prompting a user to prepare for an upcoming appointment; and in response to receiving a user interaction with the notification, preparing a report comprising the patient specific information.
However, Brown in an analogous art discloses: generating a notification prompting a user to prepare for an upcoming appointment; and in response to receiving a user interaction with the notification, preparing a report comprising the patient specific information. (Brown ¶42 discloses generating a notification to a physician for upcoming referral appointment and populating patient data in a report).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the permission levels taught by Kamp with generating a notification prompting a user to prepare for an upcoming appointment; and in response to receiving a user interaction with the notification, preparing a report comprising the patient specific information as taught by Brown to make it easier for physicians and patients to communicate and retrieve data for an appointment (see Brown ¶42).
With respect to claim 39, the claims recite a non-transitory medium. While the claim might have slight difference in language it recites similar matter to claim 2 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamp as applied to claims 21, 23-24, 26, 28-38 and 40 above, and further in view of Soenksen et al. (US 20180197639 A1) hereinafter referred to as Soenksen.
With respect to claim 25 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
Kamp does not explicitly disclose: defining a time limit related to a permission level assigned to a first role of the plurality of user roles; and revoking the permission level assigned to the first role of the plurality of user roles when time limit is reached.
However, Soenksen in an analogous art discloses: defining a time limit related to a permission level assigned to a first role of the plurality of user roles; and revoking the permission level assigned to the first role of the plurality of user roles when time limit is reached. (Soenksen ¶46 “if the turn around time has expired for the review and analysis of the digital slide that was sent to the consultant. If the TAT has expired, then the scanning center may take down the digital slide from the server. Alternatively, the scanning center may revoke access for the first consultant and circle back to step 310 and send an access instruction to a subsequent consultant.” The access level is revoked when time limit is reached).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the permission levels taught by Kamp with defining a time limit related to a permission level assigned to a first role of the plurality of user roles; and revoking the permission level assigned to the first role of the plurality of user roles when time limit is reached as disclosed by Soenksen to ensure limited time access for security (see Soenksen ¶46).
With respect to claim 27 Kamp discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 26, further comprising:
Kamp does not explicitly disclose: defining a time limit related to assigning a permission level to the particular user ID; and revoking the permission level assigned to the particular user ID when the time limit is reached.
However, Soenksen in an analogous art discloses: defining a time limit related to assigning a permission level to the particular user ID; and revoking the permission level assigned to the particular user ID when the time limit is reached. (Soenksen ¶46 “if the turn around time has expired [defined time limit] for the review and analysis of the digital slide that was sent to the consultant. If the TAT has expired, then the scanning center may take down the digital slide from the server. Alternatively, the scanning center may revoke access for the first consultant and circle back to step 310 and send an access instruction to a subsequent consultant.” The access level assigned to a certain user [ID] is revoked when time limit is reached).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the permission levels taught by Kamp with defining a time limit related to assigning a permission level to the particular user ID; and revoking the permission level assigned to the particular user ID when the time limit is reached as disclosed by Soenksen to ensure limited time access for security (see Soenksen ¶46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
