DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as “ … are disclosed,” “this disclosure concerns,” “the disclosure describes,”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12278011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are substantially similar in their claimed approach in providing patient centric networks. These similarities will be demonstrated in the table below comparing an independent claim of the present application against one from the patent.
Present application claim 21
Patent claim 1
A micronet controller configured to implement software defined networking (SDN) to automatically segment a provider network into a plurality of SDN-based micronets for an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer executable instructions therein, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
A network communication system implementing a micronet subsystem for (a) securely delivering personal electronic information across wired and/or wireless media and (b) organizing one or more connected devices within a plurality of trust domains defining a plurality of micronets, respectively, the network communication system comprising:
automatically segment the provider network into SDN-based first and second personal micronets of the plurality of micronets, configured to be established for an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being; and
a gateway in operable communication with the micronet manager, the gateway configured to implement a software defined networking (SDN) switch to automatically segment a provider network into SDN-based first and second personal micronets of the plurality of micronets, configured to be established for an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being; and
register a true identity of the living being with the cryptographically bound object,
a database that registers the true identity of the living being with the cryptographically bound object,
wherein the first personal micronet defines a first trust domain based on at least one of a status and a location of the cryptographically bound object, and
wherein the first personal micronet defines a first trust domain for the cryptographically bound object with respect to the partner network that enables a first level of access with the partner network,
wherein the second personal micronet defines a second trust domain based on a relationship of the cryptographically bound object with respect to the provider network.
wherein the second personal micronet defines a second trust domain for the cryptographically bound object with respect to the partner network that enables a second level of access with the partner network,
As can be seen above claim 21 of the present application and claim 1 of the patent is substantially similar but not exactly the same. Claim 21 of the present application defines the first trust domain based at least on of the status and a location. Patented claim 1 does not explicitly cite status or location. However, it does cite the first trust domain being bound with respect to the partner network (i.e., location) and a first level of access (i.e., status). Defining a micronet with respect to the partner network and to the level of access is equivalent to defining a micronet with respect to location and status, since the partner network is a location and the level of access is a status.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have defined a micronet with respect to the partner network and to the level of access in the present application, since a partner network is a type of location and a level of access is a type of status to secure healthcare information.
Claims 22-40 of the present application also stand rejected for being substantially similar to patented claims 2-20.
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, 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeringer et al. (US 20190036909), in view of Vom et al. (US 20220027504).
With regards to claim 21, Goeringer teaches a micronet controller configured to implement software defined networking (SDN) to automatically segment a provider network into a plurality of SDN-based micronets for an object …, comprising:
a processor; and a memory configured to store computer executable instructions therein, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (…Such devices typically include a processor or controller, such as a general purpose central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a microcontroller, a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic circuit (PLC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processing (DSP) device, and/or any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions described herein. The processes described herein may be encoded as executable instructions embodied in a computer readable medium, including, without limitation, a storage device and/or a memory device. Such instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform at least a portion of the methods described herein…; [0104], Goeringer):
automatically segment the provider network into SDN-based first and second personal micronets of the plurality of micronets, (Goeringer discloses a micronet controller implemented as an SDN based control system configured to manage network segmentation and micronet creation. SDN controller automatically segments underlying provider network into a plurality of micronets. Goeringer further discloses that multiple micronets, including at least a first micronet and a second micronet, coexist within the same network environment controlled by the SDN controller. Accordingly, Goeringer teaches a micronet controller that automatically segments a provider network into SDN based first and second micronets of plurality of micronets; [0003-0006, 0057-0058, 0077, 0082), Goeringer),
configured to be established for an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being (see Vom below);
and register a true identity of the living being with the cryptographically bound object (see Vom below),
wherein the first personal micronet defines a first trust domain based on at least one of a status and a location of the cryptographically bound object (Goeringer teaches … In some embodiments, a home user is prompted for permission for a device to connect, to ensure controlled by the home user. Prompting the user to ensure control by the home user suggests a form of status check and checking to see if the user is within a home location; [0082], Goeringer),
and wherein the second personal micronet defines a second trust domain based on a relationship of the cryptographically bound object with respect to the provider network (… devices may be identified using certificates, dynamic certificates, heuristics, and/or analytics, and then correspondingly put into one or more trust domains appropriate for the device us… automatically assign home devices into trust domains. Goeringer is expressly assigning devices to trust domains based on information about the device and its use within the network. This corresponds to a second trust domain based on a relationship of the object with respect to the provider network [0082], Goeringer),
Goeringer does not teach “an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being” nor does Goeringer teach “registering a true identity of the living being with the cryptographically bound object”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vom teaches network configured to be established for an object that is cryptographically bound to a living being. (Vom discloses ...links the mobile application 9 uniquely to the patient, and the mobile application 9 can then employ the linked patient identifier, cryptographic keys… generate a linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys (e.g. public-key cryptography), which are communicated to the mobile application 9… devices can then be paired with the mobile application… Thus, Vom teaches establishing a patient-associated object that is cryptographically linked to the patient through the linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys, this suggest the claimed cryptographic association between the object and the living being; [0133, 0138], Vom),
Vom further teaches registering a true identity of the living being with the cryptographically bound object (Vom discloses registering a patient’s mobile application and linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic, where the process includes exchange of cryptographic keys and a linked patient identifier. Accordingly, Vom teaches registering the identity of the living being with a cryptographically linked object; [0133], Vom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to utilize authentication, device attribution, secure access control, and identity management within the segmented network environment to better protect sensitive patient data.
With regards to claim 22, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 21, contained within a micronet manager system located in at least one of the provider network and a system operator network. (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration of an exemplary architecture 800 for micronetwork management system 700… Cloud infrastructure 802 further includes respective modules for one or more of a dynamic identity microservice 806, an AAA microservice 808, an SDN controller microservice 810, and a network component(s) microservice 812… (i.e., micronet controller within a micronet manager system located in at least one of the provider network and a system operator network. SDN controller correspond to micronet controller and Cloud infrastructure constitutes provider side infrastructure. Micronetwork management system is deployed with service provider that manages customer micronets); [0087, 0088], Goeringer).
With regards to claim 23, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 21, wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the provider network is related to a medical facility.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the provider network is related to a medical facility.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the provider network is related to a medical facility. Vom discloses ...links the mobile application 9 uniquely to the patient, and the mobile application 9 can then employ the linked patient identifier, cryptographic keys... Onboarding a patient is the process of registering the patient's mobile application with the hub 1 and linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic…; [0133], Vom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve authentication, device attribution, and secure access control within the segmented network environment as well as improve patient’s experience.
With regards to claim 24, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 23, wherein the first personal micronet is patient-centric, and wherein the second personal micronet is configured for creation on behalf of the medical facility.
Goeringer teaches establishing trust domains of micronets for medical devices and health care services. Goeringer further teaches creation of multiple micronets corresponding to first and second personal micronets; [0080-0082, 0094], Goeringer.
Goeringer doesn’t teach patient-centric feature and medical facility.
Vom teaches patient-centric feature and medical facility (Vom teaches linking devices and applications to a patient’s identity through patient’s identifier and cryptographic keys (i.e., patient-centric). Vom further teaches linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic; [0133, 0138], Vom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to utilize authentication, device attribution, secure access control, and identity management within the segmented network environment to better protect sensitive patient data.
With regards to claim 27, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 23, wherein the first personal micronet has a first unique identity for the cryptographically bound object, and wherein the second personal micronet has a second unique identity for the cryptographically bound object different than the first unique identity.
Goeringer teaches automatically segmenting a network in multiple micronets and assigning devices to one or more micronets based on certificates and other identity information. Goeringer further teaches using multiple credentials for device, including 509 certificate, medical device functionality certificate, and user certificates for authentication; [0082, 0095] Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach unique identity for the cryptographically bound object.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches unique identity for the cryptographically bound object. Vom teaches linking a mobile application to the identity of the patient. Vom further teaches generating linked patient identifier (i.e. unique identity) and cryptographic keys for the mobile application; [0133, 0138], Vom.
Accordingly, the combined teaching suggests a cryptographically bound object having a first unique identity represented by the patient linked identifier of Vom in a first micronet and a second unique identity represented by the authentication credentials used within another micronet of Goeringer, where the second unique identity is different from the first unique identity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to utilize authentication, device attribution, secure access control, and identity management within the segmented network environment to better protect sensitive patient data.
With regards to claim 28, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 27, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to link the first unique identity with the second unique identity for the same cryptographically bound object.
Goeringer teaches associating the same device with authentication credentials including certificates and other identity information; [0095], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach linking the first unique identity with the second unique identity for the same cryptographically bound object.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches unique identity and cryptographically bound objects. Vom teaches generating a unique ID linked to an EMR of the patient (i.e., second unique ID), embedding the unique ID into the patient application program (i.e., second unique ID), associating instruments with the application, using the unique ID to correlate the patient data with the patient (i.e., linking first and second unique IDs). Vom further teaches a combination of a ‘linked patient identifier’ (para-identification information requiring central/hub) with cryptographic keys to transmit data securely; [0084, 0085, 0087, 0090, 0096], Vom .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to utilize authentication, device attribution, secure access control, and identity management within the segmented network environment to better protect sensitive patient data.
With regards to claim 29, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 27, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a state of at least one of the first and second personal micronet within a lifetime of the respective personal micronet. (Goeringer teaches creation and management of micronets within a greater multi-level network system ... the micronets establish and maintain different levels of access for a device that it is connected, or is seeking connection, to the system based on the trust levels, and that devices are dynamically assigned to trust domains and micronets. Managing and maintaining access levels and trust levels throughout the operation of a micronet requires determining operational states of the micronet during its lifetime. Therefore, Goeringer teaches determining a state of at least one of the first and second personal micronet within a lifetime of the micronet; [0077, 0082], Goeringer).
With regards to claim 30, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 27, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to enable an authorized entity a first level access to the first personal micronet and a second level of access to the second personal micronet. (Goeringer teaches the micronets establish and maintain different levels of access for a device that it is connected, or is seeking connection, to the system based on the trust level for the device. Goeringer further teaches each micronet may have own level of security access. Accordingly, Goeringer teaches enabling an authorized entity a first level access to the first personal micronet and a second level of access to the second personal micronet; [0077, 0095], Goeringer).
With regards to claim 31, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 30, wherein the second level of access is different than the first level of access. (Goeringer teaches the micronets that establish and maintain different levels of access for a device that it is connected, or is seeking connection, to the system based on the trust level for the device. Goeringer further teaches each micronet may have own level of security access. Accordingly, Goeringer teaches that the second level of access is different than the first level of access; [0077, 0095], Goeringer).
With regards to claim 32, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 30, wherein at least one of the first and second levels of access is configured to prevent the authorized entity from accessing personally identifiable information (PII) regarding the living being.
Goeringer teaches the micronets that establish and maintain different levels of access for a device that it is connected, or is seeking connection, to the system based on the trust level for the device; [0077], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach wherein at least one of the first and second levels of access is configured to prevent the authorized entity from accessing personally identifiable information (PII) regarding the living being.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein at least one of the first and second levels of access is configured to prevent the authorized entity from accessing personally identifiable information (PII) regarding the living being (Vom teaches transmitting partially de-identified and encrypted data, generating a unique identifier linked to patient’s EMR, and correlating the received data to the patient at the hub using the unique identifier that addresses the need for the appropriate and proper handling of patient data to ensure effective security and privacy requirements are met. Thus, Vom teaches an architecture where entities may access patient related information while patient-identifying information is withheld and maintained separately. [0006, 0138, 0084, 0090], Vom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to apply such privacy preserving access controls within Goeringer’s differentiated access-level micronet architecture, thereby providing an access level that prevents the authorized entity from accessing personally identifiable information (PII) regarding the living being.
With regards to claim 33, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 27, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, using at least one of the first and second unique identities, discover a third personal micronet cryptographically bound to the object.
Goeringer teaches micronet architecture including multiple micronets and automated network discovery and attachment operations (i.e., multiple micronets constitutes discovering first, second, third micronets); [0094], Goeringer.
While Goeringer teaches discovery of micronets, Goeringer does not teach the first and second unique identities nor the cryptographic binding of a micronet to an object.
However, in the field of endeavor, Vom teaches cryptographically binding to the object (Vom teaches generating a unique identifier linked to a patient, embedding unique identifier into an application, generating cryptographic keys and linking application to patient identity; [0084], Vom).
Accordingly combined teaching suggests using a unique identity associated with a cryptographically bound object to discover a third micronet within the multi-micronet architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to employ the patient-linked identifier and cryptographic credentials of Vom during the discovery operation of Goeringer because identity-based discovery enables the system to locate and associate additional micronets corresponding to the same patient-associated object while maintaining secure authentication and trust domain management.
With regards to claim 34, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 21, wherein the object is a physical object.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the object is a physical object.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the object is a physical object. (Vom teaches operatively associating one or more medical instruments for use by the patient with the application program (i.e., physical objects); [0087], Vom)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve end-to-end security and identity binding.
With regards to claim 35, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 34, wherein the physical object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the physical object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the physical object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device. (Vom teaches the ability to easily and securely connect a range of devices and data sources, including wearables, mobile applications, RFID tags/systems, GPS tracking, workflow tools, lab equipment and electronic health records… Vom further teaches At least some of the onboarding process could be facilitated by the scanning of a machine-readable code (such as a QR code or other barcode generated by the hub) by the mobile application…; [0098, 0133], Vom)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve end-to-end security and identity binding.
With regards to claim 36, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 21, wherein the object is an electronic object.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the object is an electronic object.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the object is an electronic object. Vom teaches …uniquely associating a patient with a clinical record… Vom further discloses … linking only the unique ID to an EMR (Electronic Medical Record) of the patient… (i.e., electronic object); [0082, 0084], Vom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve security, confidentiality, and controlled access to sensitive healthcare data.
With regards to claim 37, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 36, wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the electronic object is one of a medically-coded electronic diagnosis of the living being and an electronic prescription for the living being.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the electronic object is one of a medically-coded electronic diagnosis of the living being and an electronic prescription for the living being.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the living being is a medical patient, and wherein the electronic object is one of a medically-coded electronic diagnosis of the living being and an electronic prescription for the living being. Vom discloses ...links the mobile application 9 uniquely to the patient, and the mobile application 9 can then employ the linked patient identifier, cryptographic keys... Onboarding a patient is the process of registering the patient's mobile application with the hub 1 and linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic… (i.e., the living being is a medical patient). Vom further teaches …uniquely associating a patient with a clinical record… Vom further discloses … linking only the unique ID to an EMR (Electronic Medical Record) of the patient… (EMR inherently includes diagnoses, prescriptions, treatment plans). Accordingly, Vom suggests that the claimed electronic object is one of a medically-coded electronic diagnosis of the living being and an electronic prescription for the living being; [0133, 0082, 0084], Vom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve security, confidentiality, and controlled access to sensitive healthcare data.
With regards to claim 38, Goeringer teaches a method for securely delivering personal electronic information of a medical patient within a medical provider network configured to implement software defined networking (SDN) to automatically segment the medical provider network into a plurality of SDN- based trust domains defining a respective plurality of micronets for the provider network, comprising:
assigning a micronet object (Goeringer teaches automatically assigning a device to a trust domain/micronet during provisioning [0086], Goeringer) to the medical patient upon entry into a medical facility of the medical provider network (See Vom below);
instantiating the assigned micronet object to be cryptographically bound to an electronic identity of the medical patient for an instantiated first micronet of the medical provider network, wherein the instantiated first micronet includes a patient-centric first unique identity (See Vom below);
discovering, through identity-based routing and discovery, a second micronet of the plurality of micronets related to the medical patient, wherein the discovered second micronet includes a medical facility-based second unique identity different than the first unique identity (Goeringer teaches network/device discovery and attachment operation. Goeringer further discloses authenticating devices either at external provider subsystem or at in-home subsystem using X.509 certificate, medical device functionality certificate, user certificates, and other identity credentials. Thus, Goeringer suggests identity-based discovery of network resources and plurality of micronets. External provider subsystem corresponds to a second micronet of the plurality of micronets related to the medical patient that includes a medical facility-based second unique identity different than the first unique identity; [0094-0095], Goeringer);
and linking the discovered second micronet with the instantiated first micronet by pegging each of the first and second unique identities to the electronic identity of the medical patient (See Vom below).
Goeringer teaches assigning micronet object. However, Goeringer does not teach assigning a micronet object to the medical patient upon entry into a medical facility of the medical provider network.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches assigning a micronet object to the medical patient upon entry into a medical facility of the medical provider network (onboarding a patient at a medical facility by registering the patient's mobile application (i.e., assigning an object to a medical patient upon entry into a medical facility); [0133], Vom)
Goeringer teaches assigning devices securely to the trust domains/micronets automatically and SDN-based network segmentation; [0086], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach object to be cryptographically bound to an electronic identity of the medical patient.
Vom discloses onboarding a patient by registering the patient's mobile application and linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic. During the onboarding the hub generates and provides a linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys to the mobile application. Thus, Vom teaches instantiating an assigned object to patient identified through the linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys; [0133, 0138], Vom.
The combination teaches an instantiated first micronet associated with a patient centric unique identity represented by the linked patient identifier of Vom.
Goeringer discloses linking multiple micronets (first micronet and second micronet) and identity-based authentication using certificates and credential; [0082, 0094, 0095], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach pegging each of the first and second unique identities to the electronic identity of the medical patient.
Vom discloses onboarding a patient by linking the patient application to the identity of the patient and generating a linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys. Vom further discloses providing a response including the linked patient identifier, to provide enough information to enable the mobile application 9 to provide data (including partially de-identified and encrypted data) that can be understood and correlated to the patient (including EMR) by the hub 1. Thus, Vom teaches pegging identities to an electronic identity of the patient. [0133, 0138, 0140] Vom.
The combination teaches linking a first micronet and a discovered second micronet by associating the identities used within those micronets to the patient’s electronic identity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to assign micronet object of Goeringer to the patient during onboarding process of Vom so that patient associated device and the application may participate in the appropriate micronet and provider side resources could be securely correlated.
With regards to claim 39, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the method of claim 38, wherein the instantiated object includes at least one of a cryptographically bound physical ID object and a cryptographically bound logical ID.
Goeringer teaches assigning devices to micronets and trust domains using certificates and authentication credentials; [0082, 0095], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the instantiated object includes at least one of a cryptographically bound physical ID object and a cryptographically bound logical ID.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vom teaches patient specific identifiers, cryptographic key, and physical-patient associated devices such as smartphones, medical instruments, RFID tags; [0084, 0085, 0133, 0138], Vom.
The combination therefore teaches and instantiated object that includes either a cryptographically bound physical ID object or a cryptographically bound logical ID.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve secure patient identification, trust-domain/micronet assignment, and access control.
With regards to claim 40, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the method of claim 38, wherein (a) the cryptographically bound physical ID object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device, and (b) the cryptographically bound logical ID includes at least one of a public key and a certificate ID.
Goeringer does not teach wherein (a) the cryptographically bound physical ID object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device, and (b) the cryptographically bound logical ID includes at least one of a public key and a certificate ID.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vom teaches wherein (a) the cryptographically bound physical ID object includes at least one of a bar code, a QR code, a radio frequency ID (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth device, a near-field communication device, a Wi-Fi enabled device, and a personal computing device, and (b) the cryptographically bound logical ID includes at least one of a public key and a certificate ID (The ability to easily and securely connect a range of devices and data sources, including wearables, mobile applications, RFID tags/systems, GPS tracking, workflow tools, lab equipment and electronic health records... onboarding process could be facilitated by the scanning of a machine-readable code (such as a QR code or other barcode generated by the hub) by the mobile application 9 on the patient's personal device... The hub 1 is operated to generate a linked patient identifier and cryptographic keys (e.g. public-key cryptography), which are communicated to the mobile application 9...; [0102, 0133, 0138], Vom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve secure patient identification, trust-domain/micronet assignment, and access control.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeringer in view of Vom and further in view of Eromo (US 20140288949).
With regards to claim 25, Goeringer teaches through Vom, the micronet controller of claim 21, wherein the living being is a medical patient, and...
Goeringer does not teach wherein the living being is a medical patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches wherein the living being is a medical patient. Vom discloses ...links the mobile application 9 uniquely to the patient, and the mobile application 9 can then employ the linked patient identifier, cryptographic keys... Onboarding a patient is the process of registering the patient's mobile application with the hub 1 and linking the application to the identity of the patient in the clinic…; [0133], Vom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom to improve authentication, device attribution, and secure access control within the segmented network environment as well as improve patient’s experience.
Goeringer and Vom do not teach wherein the provider network is related to a medical payment system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eromo teaches wherein the provider network is related to a medical payment system. (...The direct carrier payment system 20 can provide the insurance information to a clearance system, such as RelayHealth's RevRunner, which can evaluate the insurance eligibility, estimate patient financial responsibility, validate patient identity, and/or the like …; [0055], Eromo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Goeringer and Vom with the teaching on Eromo to improve patient’s experience with regards to payment process.
With regards to claim 26, Goeringer teaches through Vom and Eromo, the micronet controller of claim 25, wherein the first personal micronet is patient-centric, and wherein the second personal micronet is configured for creation on behalf of the medical payment system.
Goeringer teaches establishing trust domains of micronets for medical devices and health care services; [0080-0082], Goeringer.
Goeringer does not teach wherein the first personal micronet is patient-centric, and wherein the second personal micronet is configured for creation on behalf of the medical payment system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vom teaches patient-centric feature (Vom teaches linking devices and applications to a patient’s identity through patient’s identifier and cryptographic keys (i.e., patient-centric); [0133], [0138], Vom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the micronets of Goeringer using Vom’s patient-linked identities such that a first micronet is patient-centric to improve patient’s experience.
In the same field of endeavor, Eromo teaches medical payment system (Eromo teaches medical payment ecosystem, insurer system, and patient identity validation; [0055], Eromo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the micronets of Goeringer using Vom’s patient-linked identities such that a first micronet is patient-centric and configure a second micronet for the payment processing entities of Eromo to isolate healthcare payment functions from other healthcare functions.
The obviousness/ motivation statements applied to claims 21 and 38 are applicable to their respective dependent claims, where applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEEM KAZI whose telephone number is (571)397-2559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights