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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 07/08/2026. Claims 19, 34 have been amended. Claims 19, 21-25, 27-39 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 19, 34, line(s) 9-10 (claim 19), “in a health information pane wherein a bot module is configured” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- in a health information pane, wherein a bot module is configured --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 19, 21-25, 27-39 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “directing the artificial intelligence to identify relevant clinical data by correlating the analyzed specific types of medical data with the topic input”; “wherein the artificial intelligence is configured to parse the patient medical record information to extract discrete data elements from the laboratory results, medications, and imaging studies, and generate a correlation score between each extracted data element and the topic input to identify the relevant clinical data; wherein the artificial intelligence is configured to pull relevant clinical data associated with a topic during the telehealth visit and provide the pulled relevant clinical data to the billing module in real-time; and wherein the billing module is configured to automatically determine the one or more tasks based on the pulled relevant clinical data and automatically select the proposed billing strategy that yields the highest rate for the provider based on the comparison of total billing time value versus total task value during or immediately after the telehealth visit.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 19, 34, claims 19, 34 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 21-25, 27-33, 35-39 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 19, 34, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “reviewed” in claims 19, 34 is used by the claim to mean a label for “review,” while the accepted meaning is “looked at, examined, studied, or evaluated.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Examiner recommends amending “a reviewed button” to read -- a button for review – or – a button labeled “Review” -- for purposes of clarity and consistency.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-33 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 19.
Claim(s) 35-39 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 34.
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, 21-25, 27-39 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 19 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 34 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Independent claim 19 recites…connecting a healthcare provider to a patient…; …; receiving patient medical record information…; …; receiving a topic input from the healthcare provider; providing the patient medical record information…to review the patient medical record information and analyze specific types of medical data including at least one of laboratory results, medications, and imaging studies from the patient medical record information; …identify relevant clinical data by correlating the analyzed specific types of medical data with the topic input; [providing] the identified relevant clinical data in a structured format; recording…a timestamp and the substantive clinical information when the healthcare provider [reviews] an interactive card; receiving service information…; receiving pre-teleconference time entry input and/or post-teleconference time entry input from the healthcare provider; …receive service information…; and providing the pre-teleconference time entry or post-teleconference time entry…; collecting…data points related to each [review] to prepare a billing summary; …parse the patient medical record information to extract discrete data elements from the laboratory results, medications, and imaging studies, and generate a correlation score between each extracted data element and the topic input to identify the relevant clinical data; …pull relevant clinical data associated with a topic during the telehealth visit and provide the pulled relevant clinical data…in real-time; and…automatically determine the one or more tasks based on the pulled relevant clinical data and automatically select the proposed billing strategy that yields the highest rate for the provider based on the comparison of total billing time value versus total task value during or immediately after the telehealth visit.
Independent claim 34 further recites…proposing at least two billing strategies based on the service information.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “computer” (claim 34), the claim encompasses rules or instructions followed to conduct and bill a patient appointment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites additional elements (i.e., a telehealth conferencing module; displaying video communication between the healthcare provider and the patient in a teleconferencing pane; an electronic medical record database; displaying the patient medical record information in a health information pane; wherein a bot module is configured to join the telehealth visit as a participant, retrieve clinical data from the electronic medical record database, and display the retrieved clinical data as interactive cards in the health information pane, each interactive card containing substantive clinical information and a reviewed button; artificial intelligence; a billing module; a task database). Claim 34 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions; a computer; a telehealth conferencing module; displaying video communication between the healthcare provider and the patient in a teleconferencing pane; an electronic medical record database; displaying the patient medical record information in a health information pane; wherein a bot module is configured to join the telehealth visit as a participant, retrieve clinical data from the electronic medical record database, and display the retrieved clinical data as interactive cards in the health information pane, each interactive card containing substantive clinical information and a reviewed button; artificial intelligence; a billing module; a task database). Looking to the specifications, a computer, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions, modules is described at a high level of generality (page 13, 16, 21), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, displaying video communication and information in panes with interactive data and buttons is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “an electronic medical record database” and “task database” only invokes the databases merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, “artificial intelligence” is described at a high level of generality (page 9), such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how “review the patient medical record information,” “identify relevant clinical data associated with a topic,” and “parse the patient medical record information to extract discrete data elements from the laboratory results, medications, and imaging studies, and generate a correlation score between each extracted data element and the topic input to identify the relevant clinical data” is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (i.e., artificial intelligence) in which the judicial exception is performed. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computer, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions, modules) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, displaying video communication and information in panes with interactive data and buttons is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “an electronic medical record database” and “task database” only invokes the databases merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and transmitting data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, “artificial intelligence” is described at a high level of generality (page 9), such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how “review the patient medical record information,” “identify relevant clinical data associated with a topic,” and “parse the patient medical record information to extract discrete data elements from the laboratory results, medications, and imaging studies, and generate a correlation score between each extracted data element and the topic input to identify the relevant clinical data” is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (i.e., artificial intelligence) in which the judicial exception is performed. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 21-25, 27-33, 35-39 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 21-25, 29-33, 35, 38-39 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 27-28, 36-37 further recites the additional elements of “a graphical user interface” and “an interface,” respectively, which is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 07/08/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“The combination of these elements, a bot module joining as a participant, displaying clinical data as interactive cards with reviewed buttons, recording timestamps upon button activation, and collecting data points to prepare billing summaries, represents a specific technical solution to the problem of efficiently documenting and billing telehealth visits. This is not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components, but rather a particular arrangement of technical components working together in a defined manner”; and
“The specific technical implementation of "a bot module is configured to join the telehealth visit as a participant" as recited by claims 19 and 34 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional… The limitation "recording, by the billing module, a timestamp and the substantive clinical information when the healthcare provider activates the Reviewed button associated with an interactive card" as recited by claims 19 and 34 represents a specific technical mechanism… This is not merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, but rather a specific interaction paradigm where provider actions on interactive UI elements trigger data capture for billing purposes. The ordered combination of elements in claims 19 and 34, including the bot module joining as a participant, displaying interactive cards, recording timestamps upon reviewed button activation, and collecting data points for billing summaries, provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. These elements work together to create a specific technical environment for conducting and documenting telehealth visits that did not previously exist”; and
“claims 28 and 37 further recite "displaying an interface in the health information pane adapted to allow the healthcare provider to provide input configured to confirm a billing task," which provides additional specificity regarding the technical implementation of the billing confirmation mechanism.”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 101 rejections,
“The combination of these elements, a bot module joining as a participant, displaying clinical data as interactive cards with reviewed buttons, recording timestamps upon button activation, and collecting data points to prepare billing summaries, represents a specific technical solution to the problem of efficiently documenting and billing telehealth visits. This is not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components, but rather a particular arrangement of technical components working together in a defined manner”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “The combination of these elements, a bot module joining as a participant, displaying clinical data as interactive cards with reviewed buttons, recording timestamps upon button activation, and collecting data points to prepare billing summaries, represents a specific technical solution to the problem of efficiently documenting and billing telehealth visits. This is not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components, but rather a particular arrangement of technical components working together in a defined manner.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant refer as “recording timestamps upon button activation, and collecting data points to prepare billing summaries” are interpreted as part of the abstract idea of rules or instructions followed to conduct and bill a patient appointment, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Furthermore, the modules and displaying information in computer panes with interactive data (i.e., cards) and buttons is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Furthermore, “documenting and billing telehealth visits” addresses an administrative problem, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions followed to conduct and bill a patient appointment. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
“The specific technical implementation of "a bot module is configured to join the telehealth visit as a participant" as recited by claims 19 and 34 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional… The limitation "recording, by the billing module, a timestamp and the substantive clinical information when the healthcare provider activates the Reviewed button associated with an interactive card" as recited by claims 19 and 34 represents a specific technical mechanism… This is not merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, but rather a specific interaction paradigm where provider actions on interactive UI elements trigger data capture for billing purposes. The ordered combination of elements in claims 19 and 34, including the bot module joining as a participant, displaying interactive cards, recording timestamps upon reviewed button activation, and collecting data points for billing summaries, provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. These elements work together to create a specific technical environment for conducting and documenting telehealth visits that did not previously exist”:
Applicant argues “The specific technical implementation of "a bot module is configured to join the telehealth visit as a participant" as recited by claims 19 and 34 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.” However, Furthermore, per MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), evaluating whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, but only one consideration “For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept.” Furthermore, the claim limitations of “a bot module” is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “The limitation "recording, by the billing module, a timestamp and the substantive clinical information when the healthcare provider activates the Reviewed button associated with an interactive card" as recited by claims 19 and 34 represents a specific technical mechanism… This is not merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, but rather a specific interaction paradigm where provider actions on interactive UI elements trigger data capture for billing purposes. The ordered combination of elements in claims 19 and 34, including the bot module joining as a participant, displaying interactive cards, recording timestamps upon reviewed button activation, and collecting data points for billing summaries, provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. These elements work together to create a specific technical environment for conducting and documenting telehealth visits that did not previously exist.” However, per MPEP § 2106.05(I): “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter…a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty…Because [novelty and obviousness] are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“claims 28 and 37 further recite "displaying an interface in the health information pane adapted to allow the healthcare provider to provide input configured to confirm a billing task," which provides additional specificity regarding the technical implementation of the billing confirmation mechanism”:
Applicant argues “"displaying an interface in the health information pane adapted to allow the healthcare provider to provide input configured to confirm a billing task"…provides additional specificity regarding the technical implementation of the billing confirmation mechanism.” However, “displaying an interface in the health information pane” is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 19, 21-25, 27-39, which have been updated to address Applicant’s amendments and remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in the above Office Action and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights