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 ("RCE"), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 12-21, 23, and 25 were previously pending and subject to a Final Office Action having a notification date of October 2, 2025 (“Final Office Action”). Following the Final Office Action, Applicant filed the RCE and an amendment on February 2, 2026 (“Amendment”), amending claims 1, 13, and 14.
The present non-final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-9, 12-21, 23, and 25 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112(a)
While these rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment, new rejections are presented herein as necessitated by the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112(b)
While some of these rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment, new rejections are presented herein as necessitated by the Amendment.
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 1-9, 12-21, 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 1, 13, and 14 has been amended to recite, inter alia, generating time-limited authorization token associated with the telehealth session, the token only being transmitted to the second device and inaccessible to the first 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 (including the paragraphs noted by Applicant at page 11 of the Amendment) 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 and inaccessible to the first device as recited in the claims, and much less where the token is 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 as also recited in the claims.
Each of independent claims 1, 13, and 14 has also been amended to recite that the HP-side application is configured to receive, from the telehealth application, a notification that the patient has authenticated using the authorization token and to join the session responsive to the notification. However, the present specification (including the paragraphs noted by Applicant at page 11 of the Amendment) does not support such authorization token as noted above, much less that the HP-side application is configured to received, from the telehealth application, a notification that the patient has authenticated using the token and to join the session responsive to the notification.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 1, 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, 12-21, 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 line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The purpose, manipulation, and functionality of the "time-limited authorization" token recited in claims 1, 13, and 14 is not understood. Initially, claim 1 recites how the patient authenticates the authentication token in lines 28-29 but then later recites how the authorization token is transmitted from the patient to the telehealth application to authenticate the patient in lines 40-41. Furthermore, the difference between authentication of the token in lines 28-29 and 40-41 and verification of the token in line 42 is also not understood. Still further, there are no details regarding the "time-limited" nature of the token such as what such "time-limited" nature even means, when the token can and cannot be used, etc. Claims 13 and 14 have similar concerns.
Furthermore, claim 5 recites how the patient-side application is configured to connect to a virtual waiting room hosted by the telehealth application on the server prior to the telehealth session with the HP-side application of the first device being established by the telehealth application. However, claim 1 already recites how the instruction causes the patient-side application to display a graphical trigger enabling entry into a virtual waiting room for the telehealth session, thus leading to uncertainty as to the difference between the virtual waiting room of claim 5 and the virtual waiting room of claim 1.
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.
Claim 14 recites how the patient-side application displays both "a graphical trigger" and "a second graphical trigger" thus leading to uncertainty as to whether these are referring to the same graphical trigger or different graphical triggers.
Claims 19 and 20 are respectively rejected in a manner similar to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 above.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 1, 13, or 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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