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
Claims 1-9, 12-21, 23, and 25 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of March 26, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on July 24, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 6, 13, 14, and 20 and canceling claim 19.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-9, 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 25 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112(a)
These rejections are maintained because the Amendment did not fully address the Examiner's concerns in the non-final Office Action and raises new rejections.
On page 10 of the Amendment, Applicant, without specifically addressing any of the Examiner’s detailed concerns in the non-final Office Action, just provides a high level summary of the present invention by stating “However, the specification, when read as a whole, presents a unified telehealth workflow in which the server determines contact information for the patient device, the server transmits instructions guiding patient access to a scheduled session, the patient-side device displays GUI elements to confirm participation, and the system manages a virtual waiting room prior to connecting the patient and provider. Nothing in the cited passages characterizes these features as inconsistent or mutually exclusive. Rather, the disclosure describes distinct functional roles within a single continuous operational sequence, and a skilled artisan would readily understand that these operations can and do occur together as part of the system's communication and session-initiation procedures. The amended claims merely express this workflow in claim format without introducing new concepts.”
Respectfully, the above assertions do not address the Examiner’s specific concerns and Applicant is requested to address each of the Examiner’s concerns in turn to facilitate prosecution.
Applicant then asserts “The Final Office Action also comments on the order in which the patient-side graphical trigger, the virtual waiting room, and the pre-session access instructions occur. The amended claims recite these steps in a clear and chronological manner that aligns with the disclosure: the server provides instructions enabling pre-session access, the patient device presents a graphical trigger in response to those instructions, the patient confirms entry, and the system then connects the patient and provider. This ordered sequence reflects the natural reading of the written description and avoids any ambiguity about the relationship between these elements.”
Again, Applicant’s above high-level summary of the manner in which the present invention purportedly operates does not address the Examiner’s specific concerns and Applicant is requested to address each of the Examiner’s concerns in turn to facilitate prosecution.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112(b)
These rejections are maintained because the Amendment did not fully address the Examiner's concerns in the non-final Office Action and raises new rejections.
At page 11 of the Amendment, Applicant asserts “With respect to indefiniteness, the term "scheduled telehealth session" is used in the claims in the same manner as in the specification, where the underlying telehealth session is discussed both generally and in the context of its scheduled start time. A "scheduled telehealth session" simply refers to that session with reference to its scheduled appointment time, and the distinction is readily understood in light of the disclosure discussing scheduled appointments, queueing, and waiting-room behavior. The claims, read from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, provide clear and definite scope.”
With respect, the Examiner did not raise any concerns regarding a “scheduled telehealth session” and a “scheduled telehealth session” is not even recited in the claims in the first place. Again, Applicant’s above assertions do not address all of the Examiner’s indefiniteness concerns raised in the non-final Office Action and hereinbelow.
Finally, Applicant asserts “The Final Office Action also suggests that certain dependent claims may conflict with their respective independent claims. Applicant notes that each dependent claim adds permissible narrowing detail regarding queueing, timing, patient confirmation, or server behavior without contradicting or expanding the scope of the independent claims. This is the ordinary function of dependent claims, and no inconsistency exists.”
Again, Applicant’s above high-level non-claim specific assertions do not address the Examiner’s specific indefiniteness concerns raised in the non-final Office Action and hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, lines 5-6, “a authorization” should be changed to --an authorization--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13-18, 20, 21, 23, and 25 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 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.
Each of independent claims 13 and 14 recites, inter alia, generating a (time-limited) authorization token associated with the telehealth session, the token only being transmitted to only to the second device, the token being received by the telehealth application from the second device indicating successfully authentication by the patient responsive to selection of the second graphical trigger such that the first and second devices are connected into the telehealth session upon verification of the token by the telehealth application. However, the Examiner cannot identify any portion of the original specification supporting generation of a (time-limited) authorization token associated with the telehealth session, much less where the token is only transmitted to the second device as recited in the claims, and much less where the token is received by the telehealth application from the second device responsive to selection of the second graphical trigger such that the first and second devices are connected into the telehealth session upon verification of the token by the telehealth application as also recited in the claims.
Claims 15-18, 20, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 13 or 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient-side application" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites how the graphical trigger displayed to the patient “[enables] entry into a virtual waiting room of the telehealth session” but then later recites how selection of the graphical trigger “[connects] the first device and the second device into the telehealth session” thus leading to confusion as to whether selection of the graphical trigger enters the patient into the virtual waiting room or the telehealth session. A similar issue exists regarding claims 14 and 16.
Claim 4 now appears to be largely subsumed by the language of claim 1.
The purpose, manipulation, and functionality of the "time-limited authorization" token recited in claim 13 is not understood. Initially, claim 13 recites how the patient authenticates the authentication token in line 10 but then later recites how the authorization token is transmitted from the patient to the telehealth application to authenticate the patient in lines 16-17 thus leading to confusion as to which device/party actually authenticates the authentication token.
Furthermore, there are no details regarding the "time-limited" nature of the token in claims 13-14 such as what such "time-limited" nature even means, when the token can and cannot be used, etc.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the time-limited authorization token" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites how the telehealth application is configured to queue the patient-side application until the patient's scheduled appointment time and to establish the telehealth session between the first and second devices once scheduled appointment time is reached, and to request the healthcare provider, using the HP-side client, to confirm moving the patient from the virtual waiting room to the telehealth session. It is unclear whether or not such queueing is related to entry of the second device into the virtual waiting room associated with the telehealth session as already recited in claim 1.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 1, 13, or 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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 on 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights