DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim filed on 04/01/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 21-22 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(1). However, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed, and even original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function, See MPEP 2161.01(1) citing in part Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.").
Specifically, with regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the specification must provide a disclosure of the computer and the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. MPEP 2161.01(1).
Claim 1, and similarly in claim 11, recites “and none of the one or more first live-chat modules comprise any computer function to initiate any live-chat communication with any of the one or more second live-chat modules”, for which the subject matter of the limitation 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As best understood, it appears that there is no support for the underlined recitation in the original disclosure of the present application for this limitation. As described in applicant’s specification in PGPub the description discloses in [0107] “a group chat between doctors and staff members may be initiated by a doctor, but is not allowed to be initiated by a staff member”, and in [0114] In these embodiments, a live chat may only be initiated by the live-chat module 246 of the doctor's app 208. Of course, those skilled in the art will appreciate that in some alternative embodiments, the live-chat module 226 of the patient's app 208 may also initiate a live chat with the live-chat module 246 of the doctor's app 208.” There is not explicit disclosure as filed describing the underlined feature as claimed.
Claim 21, and similarly in claim 22, recites “without any computer function to send any audio and video messages to any of the one or more second client-computing devices” for which the subject matter of the limitation 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As best understood, it appears that there is no support for the underlined recitation in the original disclosure of the present application for this limitation. As described in applicant’s specification in PGPub the description discloses in [0102], “the live-chat module 226 establishes and maintains real-time multimedia communication (e.g., in text, image, voice, and video) with the doctor's app 208 of the patient's doctor”. [0114] “a live chat may only be initiated by the live-chat module 246 of the doctor's app 208. Of course, those skilled in the art will appreciate that in some alternative embodiments, the live-chat module 226 of the patient's app 208 may also initiate a live chat with the live-chat module 246 of the doctor's app 208.” There is not explicit disclosure as filed describing the underlined feature as claimed.
The examiner takes the position that with respect to these limitations or features of the claims, the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the invention to an extent that would sufficiently show that applicant was in possession of an invention that could operate as claimed. Simply disclosing a vague description, without actually explaining how to perform the function(s) claimed, results in a written description problem under 112(a). The examiner has no idea how applicant actually contemplated doing these steps because nothing is disclosed other than the broad disclosure of the specification as mentioned above.
Therefore, applicant has failed to show the actual subject matter in their possession at the time of the invention in a way sufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Therefore, these limitations of the claims are considered to be new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 21 are drawn to a system, and Claims 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are drawn to a method, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under step 2A, prong 1, The claimed invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for monitoring patient health. This abstract idea could have been performed mentally “Mental Process” and interaction between a user and a device and following instructions “Organizing human activity” but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for steps citing a process directed to gathering patient data, analyze it, and instructions/advices to perform an action, for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Cerine Method of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent claim 1 and 11 recite the steps of:
“one or more health-monitoring data sources for acquiring health-related data of the one or more patients, said one or more data sources comprising one or more sensors for measuring physiological parameters of the one or more patients;
one or more first client-computing devices associated with and used by the one or more patients;
one or more second client-computing devices associated with and used by one or more health professionals;
one or more server computers;
a secured database;
a network functionally coupled to the one or more health-monitoring data sources, the one or more first client-computing devices, the one or more second client-computing devices, the one or more server computers, and the secured database;
an artificial intelligence (AI) platform; and
one or more geo-location sensors functionally coupled to the AI platform
wherein the one or more first client-computing devices, the one or more second client- computing devices, and the one or more server computers are configured for:
collect[ing] health-related data acquired by the one or more health-monitoring data sources,
store[ing] the collected health-related data in the secured database as electronic medical records (EMRs),
automatically analyze[ing] the collected health-related data and assessing the health conditions of the one or more patients using the AI platform for obtaining health-analysis results and health and medical advices,
providing the one or more patients suggestions based on the obtained health-analysis results and assessed health conditions, using the AI platform to estimate geo-coordinates of the one or more patients based on the one or more geo-location sensors and providing the estimated geo-coordinates to the one or more health professionals;
update[ing] the EMRs;
and wherein the suggestions are selected from a group of managing health conditions at home, visiting a clinic for health management, visiting a hospital or emergency room for health management, and remaining at current location
wherein each of the one or more first client-computing devices comprises a first live-chat module for use by a respective one of the one or more patients, and each the one or more second client-computing devices comprising a second live-chat module for use by a respective one of the one or more health professionals;
wherein the first and second live-chat modules are communicative with each other via the network; and
wherein, among the first and second live-chat modules, only each of the one or more second live-chat modules is comprise a computer function to initiate alive-chat communication with one of the one or more first live-chat modules, and none of the one or more first live-chat modules comprise any computer function to initiate any live-chat communication with any of the one or more second live-chat modules”.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human user/actor interaction with computing device(s) that constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the limitations encompass a user to interact with other computing components and/or other user(s) to collect health data, analyze the data and suggest an action to be performed by the other user(s), which are steps that that could have been performed by a human actor using generic computing components to implement the abstract idea. These limitations encompass activity of a single person or multiple people and a computer, interacting with other users and with computing system(s) to perform the steps of the claimed invention, e.g., suggest calling remaining at current location and/or visiting a medical facility/office and provide a location for the facility/office to visit, which constitutes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and insignificant, extra-solution activity. In particular, the claims recite additional element such as “databases, server computers, network, data sources, client-computing devices, health- monitoring device, Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform, sensors, live-chat module, network”, that is/are disclosed at a high - level of generality and includes known hardware components that implements the identified abstract idea. The additional elements have been interpreted to be computing components with a general - purpose processor which is disclosed at a high - level of generality and includes known hardware (or software) components, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (store[ing], update[ing], initiate[ing]), see MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., updating EMR and using AI platform without disclosing any specific steps or process of how the AI performing the steps of the claim, uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). Additionally, the claims reciting the step of “automatically” that is recited at a high degree of generality such that providing a machine still performs the claimed functions without manual operation, even though a human may initiate or interrupt the process, which is a nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and does not affect the generation of the data object and as such amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, see: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Accordingly, looking at the claims as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements provide no integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application because they appear to merely automate a manual process, such that no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea are introduced and the computing elements are merely utilized as tools to perform the abstract ideas. The claim as a whole is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) or insignificant extra-solution activity that has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 15-22 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea, while the depending claims add additional limitations analyzed as the following:
As for claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-22, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claim(s) recite additional elements such as “databases, server computers, network, data sources, client-computing devices, health- monitoring device, Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform, neural network, live-chat module, portable reader, cartridge, nanostructured sensing surface” recited in the claim(s) at a high level and is directed to an already developed/trained model(s). The additional element(s) have been interpreted to be computing components with a general - purpose processor which is disclosed at a high - level of generality and includes known hardware (or software) components, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (store[ing]), see MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., using AI platform or neural network without disclosing any specific steps or process of how the AI or neural network is performing the steps of the claim, uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). Thus, the judicial exceptions recited in claims is/are not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 6 and 16, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 2017/0262604 A1) in view of Shams et al. (US 20180144255 A1 “Shams”) in view of Siebers et al. (US 2013/0127620 A1 “Siebers”)
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Francois teaches a network system for monitoring health conditions of one or more patients, the system comprising:
one or more health-monitoring data sources for acquiring health-related data of the one or more patients, said one or more data sources comprising one or more sensors for measuring physiological parameters of the one or more patients (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2], [0003], [0039-0040], [0131], );
one or more first client-computing devices associated with and used by the one or more patients Francois discloses a patient device user interface [first client-computing devices] for entering information regarding a patient (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2]);
one or more second client-computing devices associated with and used by one or more health professionals; Francois discloses a physician user interface [second client-computing devices] for entering information regarding a patient (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2], [0136])
one or more server computers Francois discloses information entered through a user interface(s) is transmitted to a system server over a network (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2], [0136]);
a secured database Francois discloses a database contains patient information and credentials such as password, biometric identifier, etc., must be provided in order to be given access rights to the database (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2], [0085], [0107], [0142], [0389], [0418], [0431]);
a network functionally coupled to the one or more health-monitoring data sources, the one or more first client-computing devices, the one or more second client-computing devices, the one or more server computers, and the secured database (Francois: [Fig. 1, 2], [0085], [0136]);
an artificial intelligence (AI) platform; Francois discloses a system that acts as a platform and using AI tool in analysis platform (Francois: [0449] and
one or more geo-location sensors functionally coupled to the AI platform Francois discloses the patient device comprising sensors (e.g., global positioning system (GPS)) to collected patient data such as location where determining the location uses the GPS as a geo-location sensor (Francois: [0131], [0416], [0479])
wherein the one or more first client-computing devices, the one or more second client- computing devices, and the one or more server computers are configured for:
collecting health-related data acquired by the one or more health-monitoring data sources; Francois discloses collecting various kinds of patient data from different sources and store each type in its own database (Francois: [Fig. 1, 4A-C], [0086], [0091], [0099], [0119], [0134], [0418])
storing the collected health-related data in the secured database as electronic medical records (EMRs) Francois discloses collecting various kinds of patient data from different sources and store each type in its own database where an electronic health records being a database where patient/user information is stored and where each user is provided a user account in order to be able to use and access the database, and where the user must provide credentials to his/her account such as password, biometric identifier, etc., in order to be given an access rights to the mentioned database which is a clear description of a secure database (Francois: [0085-0086], [0091], [0099]-[0100], [0134], [0142], [0389], [0418], [0431])
automatically analyzing the collected health-related data and assessing the health conditions of the one or more patients using the Al platform for obtaining health-analysis results and health and medical advices Francois discloses management of the condition based on the health data obtained in the course of the health evaluation or assessment and provide advices utilizing a variety of different algorithms to perform the steps and determine directions [advices] for management of the condition whereas the algorithms may map inputs to a smart symptom tracker (SST) to each or every particular combination and output by employing any of the various tools of artificial intelligence (Francois: [Fig. 4D], [0100], [0105], [0153], [0163], [0187], [0311])
providing the one or more patients suggestions based on the obtained health-analysis results and assessed health conditions, using the AI platform to estimate geo-coordinates of the one or more patients based on the one or more geo-location sensors and providing the estimated geo-coordinates to the one or more health professionals Francois discloses based on the output of the analysis provide a suggestion to a course of action to the patient to the patients as such a location-based identification system is used the electronic device uses a positioning system with techniques to provide instructions to determine geographic coordinates/location of the device as such detecting the location of the patient device and notify the health care provider (Francois: [0149], [0403], [0408], [0478]-[0479])
updating the EMRs; Francois discloses scheduling patient for a doctor visit where data is used to populate [updating] information stored in databases (Francois: [0290]-[0291], [0313], [0395]).
and wherein the suggestions are selected from a group of comprise managing health conditions at home, visiting a clinic for health management, visiting a hospital or emergency room for health management, and remaining at current location Francois discloses based on the output of the analysis, provide a suggestion or instructions to a course of action to the patient regarding management of the condition such as staying at home/indoor location due to an environmental condition, managing condition at home (controlling diet, medication), or schedule a doctor visit or call 911/go to emergency room (Francois: [Fig. 3E-F, 4D], [0100], [0149], [0163], [0242], [0291])
wherein each of the one or more first client-computing devices comprises a first live-chat module for use by a respective one of the one or more patients, and each the one or more second client-computing devices comprising a second live-chat module for use by a respective one of the one or more health professionals; wherein the first and second live-chat modules are communicative with each other via the network; and wherein, among the first and second live-chat modules, only each of the one or more second live-chat modules is comprise a computer function to initiate alive-chat communication with one of the one or more first live-chat modules, and none of the one or more first live-chat modules comprise any computer function to initiate any live-chat communication with any of the one or more second live-chat modules Francois discloses a smart system tracker (SST) application software with a treatment plan (T-Plan) program comprising modules installed on plurality of users devices (e.g., physicians/health care provider and patients) allowing the users to interact in real-time [live-chat module] via texting, user system interaction resembling a conversation or communication in real-time [live-chat] between patient device/user interface [first client-computing devices] and physician/care provider device/user interface [second client-computing devices], e.g., phone/smartphone, videoconference, or any suitable communication channel, over a network whereas the T-Plan product provide means to physician/care provider who has been a signed a remote care provider module to starts the conversation with the patient by sending messages that would display on the patient device to ask about symptoms and further diagnosis [second live-chat modules is configured to initiate alive-chat communication with one of the one or more first live-chat modules] via sending text messages and patient responses to the messages in real-time (Francois: [Fig. 2, 3B-E, 4A], [0080], [0114], [0157] [0163], [0173], [0272] [0353], [0384-0386], [0399], [0435]).
Examiner takes a note that the feature “and none of the one or more first live-chat modules comprise any computer function to initiate any live-chat communication with any of the one or more second live-chat modules” has been interpreted as no initiation of chat is to be made by the first device rather it is imitated by the second device as described in Francois disclosing the T-Plan product providing the care provider (second device) a remote care provider module (second live-chat modules) to communicate with the patient (first device) while the patient response to the care provider but not the other way.
However, Francois does not expressly disclose
- geo-location sensors functionally coupled to the AI platform
- using the AI platform to estimate geo-coordinates based on the one or more geo-location sensors
- instructions comprise remaining at current location
Shams teaches
geo-location sensors functionally coupled to the AI platform Shams discloses an event is detected through different sensors at AI device(s) connected to AI server to determine locations of the event using GPS, Wi-Fi triangulation, or other location technologies (Shams: [0051], [0057], [0072]).
using the AI platform to estimate geo-coordinates of the one or more patients based on the one or more geo-location sensors Shams discloses using artificial intelligence with integration of sensors detecting geo-location of a user using sensors and location tracker such as voice, GPS, and other location technologies triangulates to determine location coordinates of each user and to monitoring health conditions of the users and contact support when needed (Shams: [0009], [0012], [0046], [0061], [0065], [0072], [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have location detection in Francois to incorporate using AI for detecting geo-location of a user, as taught by Shams to enable continuous tracking of health conditions over different locations and feedback in real-time (Shams: [0008]).
Siebers teaches
instructions comprise ... remaining at current location Siebers discloses a mesaage presented to a patient instructing to stay still [remain at current location] for help to arrive (Siebers: [0033], [0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have actions for instructing a patient in Francois to incorporate instruction to remain in the same/current location, as taught by Siebers to improve patient safety and well-being (Siebers: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more first client-computing devices, the one or more second client-computing devices, and the one or more server computers are further configured for:
receiving input from the one or more second client-computing devices Francois discloses a healthcare provider/physician may provide input or entered by a healthcare provider through a user interface [second client-computing devices] such as may select or enter input information indicating significant patient characteristics or indicating an occurrence of a significant health event in regards to patient condition management (Francois: [Fig. 6A-E], [0022], [0114], [0134], [0136], [0314], [0328], [0344], [0350], [0395]); and
revising the obtained health-analysis results and health and medical advices based the received input Francois discloses based on the input entered by the healthcare provider/ physician, it changes or adjusts configuration or update evaluation and results, for example, adding a medication or evaluation question of the patient whereas outcomes may change and accordingly propose changes to health management direction instruction such as hospitalization or visit ER due to detecting a significant deterioration of the patient health status (Francois: [Fig. 3B-F, 4A-D, 6D-E], [0023], [0137], [0283]-[0284], [0328], [0396]).
Regarding Claim 3 (Previously Presented), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more first client- computing devices, the one or more second client-computing devices, and the one or more server computers are further configured for:
storing a portion of the EMRs of one patient of the one or more patients into secured a personal-data database of the first client-computing device associated with the patient Francois discloses patient data collected is stored in association with an identifier [associated with the patient] and stored in encrypted form [secured] stored on a patient computer device, e.g., mobile device (Francois: [Fig. 3 A, H], [0081], [0085], [0107], [0121], [0135], [0389], [0463], [0468]).
Regarding Claim 5 (Previously Presented), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the Al platform is configured for using a neural network to process and analyze the collected health- related data Francois discloses algorithms for health evaluation based on data collected, employing any of the various tools of artificial intelligence such as neural networks (Francois: [0187]).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the collected health-related data comprises a personalized health questionnaire Francois discloses data collected by a personal monitoring device of a patient through a series of questions for asking the patient to obtain data associated with a health condition (e.g., COPD) (Francois: [0090], [0113], [0196], [0245]).
Regarding Claim 7 (Previously Presented), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the Al platform is configured for monitoring physical activity and physiological health indicators of at least one of a heart rate, a heart rhythm, a blood pressure, a breathing pattern, a blood glucose level, and a blood oxygen saturation (Francois: [Table 3], [0039], [0059], [0253]).
Regarding Claim 8 (Previously Presented), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the Al platform is configured for one or more of evaluating the medical conditions of the one or more patients, providing medical diagnoses thereto, providing health management thereto, providing medical advices thereto, and communicating the health or medical information thereof to one or more health professionals and/or emergency-response professionals, based on the analysis of the collected health-related data and assessment of the health conditions of the one or more patients Francois discloses health management analysis for analyzing a condition (e.g., COPD) analyzed based on diagnosis of symptoms and disease progression and based on the evaluation of the condition, provide a recommendations or directions [advices] for managing the condition such as instructing the patient to seek medical attention and contact his/her doctor or care provider to setup appointment or seek emergency attention (Francois: [0075], [0100], [0163], [0173]).
Regarding Claim 9 (Previously Presented), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more health-monitoring data sources comprise a portable reader and a cartridge for receiving and analyzing samples of bodily fluids and/or tissue of one of the one or more patients Francois discloses a dipstick or test strip [cartridge] for obtaining a biological sample (e.g., body fluids) and using users mobile device [portable reader] to measure or detect presence of a substance in the biological sample (Francois: [0061]).
Regarding Claim 11 (Currently Amended), Francois teaches A method for monitoring health conditions of one or more patients, the method comprising:
the claims recite substantially similar limitation to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above
Regarding Claim 12-13 and 15-19, the claims recite substantially similar limitation to claim 2-3 and 5-9, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding Claim 21 (Currently Amended), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more first client-computing devices comprises a computer function to send and receive text and image messages to and from one of the one or more second client-computing devices in real-time communication therewith, respectively, and to only receive audio and video messages from the one of the one or more second client-computing devices without any computer function to send any audio and video messages to any of the one or more second client-computing devices; Francois discloses a patient visiting a physician/health care provider is communicating in real-time and receiving healthcare by the patient device, or videoconferencing where the physician/health care provider may interact with the patient sending voice/audio instructions and/or may make and send video(s) to support his/her patient T-Plan and receive the patient acknowledgment and responses text but not any video or audio messages (Francois: [Fig. 3B-3 [0080], [0115], [0272-0274], [0384-0386], [0464])
wherein each of the one or more second client-computing devices is configured to send and receive text, image, audio, and video messages to and from one of the one or more first client- computing devices in real-time communication therewith, respectively Francois discloses a patient visiting a physician is receiving healthcare by the patient device, or videoconferencing where the physician/health care provider may interact with the patient via audio and/or may make and send video(s) to support his/her patient T-Plan and receive the patient acknowledgment and responses (Francois: [0080], [0115], [0272-0274]).
Regarding Claim 22 (Currently Amended), the claim recites substantially similar limitation to claim 21, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 2017/0262604 A1) in view of Shams et al. (US 20180144255 A1 “Shams”) in view of Siebers et al. (US 2013/0127620 A1 “Siebers”) in view of Muthukumar et al. (US 2019/0250153 A1 “Muthukumar”)
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers teaches the system of claim 9,
However, the combination of Francois, Shams, and Siebers does not expressly disclose the cartridge comprises a nanostructured sensing surface for collecting and amplifying a biomolecular binding-signal.
Muthukumar teaches
wherein the cartridge comprises a nanostructured sensing surface for collecting and amplifying a biomolecular binding-signal of said samples of bodily fluids and/or tissue. Muthukumar discloses a detecting or sensing array on a test strip comprising semiconducting nanostructures that can be used to facilitate direct electron transport as their electrical properties are strongly altered by charge perturbations occurring due to biomolecular confinement and binding events (Muthukumar: [Fig. 10], [0102]-[0103], [0173]-[0174], [0234], [0239], [0244], [0275]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the test strip of Francois to incorporate a test strip comprising nanostructured sensing surface for collecting and amplifying a biomolecular binding-signal, as taught by Muthukumar to improve specificity and sensitivity in detecting and diagnosing certain diseases and physiological conditions and save cost (Muthukumar: [0179], [0253]).
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitation to claim 10, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 9-11.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues “the claimed network system is solely focused on the innovative computer function to achieve a single-direction initiation of live-chat communication. Such a network system, and in particular the claimed computer function is rooted in the computer system and used by the computer system, and "Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process”, Examiner respectfully disagree. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation for the purpose of determining whether they encompass a judicial exception. As described in the rejection above, the steps of the claim(s) steps as amended, under BRI, recite steps for gathering data via interaction between users (e.g., physician with a patient or physicians with a physician) to collect and analyze health data and provide an action to be taken as such recite a process for collecting and analyzing individuals/user health data for health assessment and action suggested (e.g., suggestion to remain at current location), which are steps of Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
Applicant further argues on page 9-10 of the remarks that “The claimed computer function cannot organize human activity because the patient is still free to initiate a live-chat with a health professional using other computer systems or other software running on the network system (which is out of scope of the claimed invention) ... amended claims 1 and 11 does not recite "an interaction between users", and rather recites a computer software structure...”, Examiner respectfully disagree. As described above, the steps is/are still reciting an abstract idea, for example collecting information, while using video or telephone used simply to perform routine tasks (receiving, recording, sending) during interaction between users seen as using generic technology to implement an abstract idea as such is directed to a judicial exception that fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Therefore, the Applicant argument is found to be unpersuasive and Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on page 11-14.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that “Applicant submits that Francois does not disclose this feature, and actually teaches away from this feature, Examiner respectfully disagree. As described above, the amended feature “and none of the one or more first live-chat modules comprise any computer function to initiate any live-chat communication with any of the one or more second live-chat modules”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, has been interpreted as no initiation of chat is to be made by the first device rather it is imitated by the second device and as described in Francois disclosing the T-Plan product providing the care provider (second device) a remote care provider module (second live-chat modules) to communicate with the patient (first device) while the patient response to the care provider but not the other way. The reference Francois describes the software application installed on the patient and the physician or health care provider devices and comprising module(s) allowing a patient and physician or health care provider to interact and communicant in real-time over a network however the communication starts by the physician or the care provider sending messages to the patient but not by the patient starts sending the messages to the care provider as it is clearly indicated in the communication workflow described in Francois indicating none of the first chat modules is initiating the chat, see (Francois: [0384-386]).
Therefore, Examiner finds the Applicant argument(s) is/are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
