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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed 10/26/2025.
Claims 1-18 were canceled 10/26/2025.
Claims 19-38 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is further locate” is not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19, 29 and 37 and therefore their dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 19, 29 and 37 recite: “a computer system configured to automatically…modify the medical data such that it is stored in a secure database in a second format displayable by a healthcare provider device” and “map the emergency data to a unique identifier associated with the individual” is not in the specification. The specification is silent on a format being automatically modified for display but rather describes that the format of the reports are generated based on user command of a healthcare provider entering the information (paragraph 38). Further, the emergency data is not defined by the specification and the specification is silent on emergency data being stored in a secure database that corresponds to the unique identifier. The specification recites that the NFC tag contains personal medical data (paragraph 42), and does not differentiate between emergency and non-emergency data.
Regarding claims 29 and 37, the claim limitation “a computer system configured to automatically…access the emergency data stored in the secure database corresponding to the unique identifier in the second format displayable on the healthcare provider device” is not in the specification. The specification recites that a healthcare provider may scan an NFC tag (i.e., unique identifier) of a patient, but not that the system automatically access the emergency data stored in a secure database (paragraph 55).
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 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 19-38 are drawn to a system which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 19 recites: providing emergency access to medical data of an individual, configured to automatically” import medical data in a first format; categorize the medical data into emergency data and non-emergency data; modify the medical data such that it is stored in a second format displayable; and map the emergency data to a unique identifier associated with the individual; retrieve the unique identifier; access the emergency data stored; corresponding to the unique identifier and in the second format displayable.
Independent claim 29 recites: providing emergency access to medical data of an individual, configured to automatically: import medica data in a first format; categorize the medical data into emergency data and non-emergency data; modify the medical data such that it is stored in a second format displayable and map the emergency data to a unique identifier associated with the individual’; retrieve the unique identifier; access the emergency data stored corresponding to the unique identifier in the second format displayable; and submit, an update to the medical data in the second format; and wherein, based on the update, automatically synchronize with the update to the medical data in the first format.
Independent claim 37 recites: providing emergency access to medical data of an individual, import medical data associated with the individual in a first format; categorize the medical data into emergency data and non-emergency data; modify the medical data such that it is stored in a second format displayable; and map the emergency data to a unique identifier associated with the individual; retrieve the unique identifier; access the emergency data stored corresponding to the unique identifier in the second format displayable; and submit, an update to the medical data in the second format; wherein, based on the update received is further locate additional pertinent medical data associated with the individual and transmit the additional pertinent medical data to: in the second format; and a target medical facility in a third format.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a healthcare provider and a patient, as reflected in the specification, which states that “present invention relates to consent data for human specimen research, and more specifically, to methods and systems for codification, tracking, and use of informed consent data for human specimen research” (see: specification paragraph 2). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “A system and method for end-to-end entering, storing and maintaining a person's medical data that is critically needed to be known to among others, first responders and healthcare providers when they intervene, a device to be carried, worn by or implanted internally in the patient at all times, a device to be carried by first responders and other healthcare providers or fixed at healthcare facilities and offices that enables retrieving the emergency medical data, a server with a database for secure storage and retrieval of the medical data for all of the patients, and a communication system for relaying the medical data to the hospital before the patient arrives to the emergency/triage station and a wireless selforganizing network for assuring communications in case commercial wireless networks are unavailable or malfunctioning.” (see: specification paragraph 4). This problem is addressed “prompting a first responder/health care provider with a list of the closest hospitals in the area, possibly using geolocation, and enabling the Patient medical data to be immediately transmitted to the selected hospital, together with information optionally enter by the first responder/health care provider such as the situation circumstances, type of injury, the patient's state of consciousness, initial treatments and interventions administered, etc.” (see: specification paragraph 30). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “system”, “computer system”, “EHR/EMR system”, “secure database”, “healthcare provider device”, “patient device”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the receiving, transmitting, and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 5 and
Paragraph 11, where “Patient Device, a smartphone acting as an embodiment of a Healthcare Provider Device, and other system entities according to at least one example embodiment.”
Paragraph 40, where “FIG. 5 depicts a Smart Watch acting as embodiment of a Patient Device, a smartphone acting as an embodiment of a Healthcare Provider Device, and other system entities according to at least one example embodiment. The Smart Watch could be a standard device available in the market or device specifically designed and built for the purpose of implementing the present invention.”
Paragraph 22, where “The Patient Device is an object that the Patient must carry at all times in order for the disclosed invention to be effective. It can have many forms of embodiments, for example a card in the patient's wallet, a bracelet, amulet, wristwatch, implanted device, etc. A possible embodiment can even be as simple as a graphic tattooed on the Patient's body.”
Paragraph 24, where “The Healthcare Provider Device is an electronic device that the Healthcare Provider uses for retrieving the data via the Patient Device. It can have many forms of embodiments, for example a smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop or other hand held or fixed data terminal. Its embodiment depends on the application, which input/output it must carry such as screen or printer, which type of connectivity such as cellular data, Wi-Fi, memory card slot etc.”
Paragraph 25, where “The Personal Medical Data Server is a computer server with a database, typically hosted in a secure data center. The Personal Medical Data for all of the patients who are registered to the service are securely stored in the secure database. The server hosts applications for data creation, storage, modification and retrieval of medical data. Other back-office applications like administration and billing are also hosted in the server. Server operations are operated by authorized Client entities.”
Paragraph 26, where “The Provisioning Client enables the creation of a Patient record in the database as well as entering and editing its data. Provisioning can be performed by an individual who manually creates a new Patient record and enters the requested data. The human interface can be over a web browser that communicates with an HTTP server and/or via a dedicated client-server interface over the Personal Medical Data Server API. The API can be used for machine-tomachine provisioning, such as importing patient data from the patient external Electronic Health Record/Electronic Medical Record (EHR/EMR) systems.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 20-28, 30-36 and 38 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 20-28, 30-36, 38 recite transmitting, receiving, storing and updating healthcare data on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-38 contain independent claims 19, 29, and 37 that are similar to independent claim 19 of parent case 15/420,187 and overcome the previous prior art of record Felsher (US 2014/0222684 A1), Cohen (US 2005/0108057 A1), Eaton (US 2016/0051146 A1), and Lovyagen (WO 2019/148130 A1). Independent claims 19, 29 and 37 recite modifying medical data in a second format, sorting data so that only the emergency data is stored in the secure database to be associated with the unique identifier in a second format displayable which overcome the prior art of record. A new prior art search was conducted and found the prior art of Davis (US 20110301976 A1) that teaches updating medical record data in emergency triage situations, however it did not teach using unique patient identifiers that differentiate between emergency and non-emergency data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights