Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/697,820

SETTING UP VIDEO CALLS BETWEEN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND PATIENTS

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Mar 17, 2022
Examiner
EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH
Art Unit
3687
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Doximity Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
9%
Grant Probability
At Risk
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
40%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 9% of cases
9%
Career Allow Rate
4 granted / 46 resolved
-43.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
92
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 46 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Acknowledgements This office action is in response to the claims filed October 23, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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 . Response to Amendment(s) Claims 1-20 are pending 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 1-20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below: Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15: Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?): Independent Claim 1 falls within the statutory category of method Independent Claim 8 falls within the statutory category of machine Independent Claim 15 falls within the statutory category of article of manufacture Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in claim 1, 8, and 15 are (Claim 1 being representative): Receiving, from a healthcare provider a request to initiate a call between a healthcare provider and a patient; authenticating based on credentials of a healthcare provider received with the request; generating, a call based on the request; generating, a message comprising a link to the call, a name of a healthcare provider, and a purpose of the online video call, wherein the link in the message allows the patient to join the call without using details; wherein the link comprises an indication of a path to route data for the online call and an expiration time for the online call and wherein the link comprises a first signature that is generated based on an identifier and an identifier for the call transmitting, the message comprising the link to the patient authenticating based on the link being clicked: and enabling the patient to join the call based on a determination that the first signature matches a second signature previously obtained This abstract idea in both claims 1, 8, and 15 is merely managing the set- up and generation of a session between a healthcare provider and a patient. This represents a series of rules or instructions to manage interactions between people that a person or persons would follow to manage the set up and generation of a call between a healthcare provider and a patient which is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” within certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claim 1, 8, and 15 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites the additional claim elements below: A processing device A text message An online video call A network Patient device Healthcare provider device A video server Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole. Within the noted above additional claim element, a processing device, is performing the abstract idea and stated with a high level of generality to apply the abstract idea thus “apply-it” The additional element, an online video call, is generally linking the abstract idea to the technological field of telemedicine. The additional element, a patient device is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to apply the set-up and generation of the session between the healthcare provider and the patient as “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional element, a healthcare provider device is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to apply the set-up and generation of the session between the healthcare provider and the patient as “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional element, a text message, is generally linking the abstract idea to the technological field of mobile communication. The additional element, a network, is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to apply the set-up and generation of the session between the healthcare provider and the patient as “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional element, a video server, is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to apply identifying a call between the healthcare provider and the patient as “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Independent claim 8 recites the additional claim elements below not already recited in the independent claim 1: A processing device with a memory Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole. Within the noted above additional claim element, a processing device with a memory, is performing the abstract idea and is stated with a high level of generality to apply the abstract idea and is thus “apply-it” Independent claim 15 recites the additional claim elements below not already stated in the independent claim 1 and 8: A processing device with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions stored therein Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole. Within the noted above additional claim element, A processing device with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions stored therein, is performing the abstract idea and is stated with a high level of generality to apply the abstract idea and is thus “apply-it” Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1). Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely generally linking with some elements as stated above and applying the abstract idea with general processing device ([0045]-[0046] disclosed in instant applications specification) to set-up and generate a call between a healthcare provider and a patient therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible. Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20: Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?): The dependent claims 2-7 fall within the statutory category of method. The dependent claims 9-14 fall within the statutory category of machine. The dependent claims 16-20 fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture. Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 abstract idea by (1) further limiting the information in the link, (2) authenticating the call, and (3) limiting who and how to join a call. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” within certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite the additional claim elements below not previously cited in the independent claims: One or more additional devices Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole. The noted above additional claim element, one or more additional devices, is generally linking the abstract idea to the technological fields of third party video conferencing. Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1). Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely generally linking the abstract idea and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible. Subject Matter Free of Prior Art The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims (Claim 1 recited here as representative). was not found as positively recited in the prior art. For additional reasons, see page 1-4 of applicant’s remarks filed October 23, 2025. The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows: • Yuresko et. al (hereinafter Yuresko) (US10873855B1) o A method includes receiving an indication that a patient is assigned to a patient device . The patient device stores healthcare information associated with the patient . The method includes sending configuration data to the patient device to configure the patient device to be compatible with a video conference service in response to receiving the indication that the patient is assigned to the patient device . The method includes generating video conference creden tials for the patient in response to configuring the patient device . The video conference credentials enable an auto join link that is usable by a third party device to establish a video conference with the patient through the video conference service . The method includes sending • McBride et. al (hereinafter McBride) (US11734650B2), o An efficient and secure process by which users may enter sensitive information into an electronic information system. When information is required from a user, the electronic information system may be configured to generate a unique access link (uniform resource locator, or URL) for that user. The link may be sent to the user via electronic communication, such as a text message or email. When the user follows the link with a web browser, the system prompts the user to enter an additional piece of personal information that is not known to the general public. Once identity is verified, the user may be required to electronically sign agreements. The user is then prompted to enter the required information. This may allow a user to deposit sensitive information into the system without requiring the user to provide full login credentials. Nair et. al (hereinafter Nair) (US20100125569A1) o A system and method for auto hyperlinking and navagation in URL based context queries. A result set from a context query is received from a user over a network, wherein the result set comprises at least one reference to a data object and further comprises the context query. The reference to the data object is translated, via the network, to a URL configured to retrieve the data object. A plurality of related URLs are generated via the network, wherein the result set of the context query is used to seed generation. At least one advertisement associated with the context query is retrieved via the network. A webpage comprising the URL configured to retrieve the data object, the plurality of related URLs and the advertisement is assembled and transmitted over the network to the user. Giladi et. al (hereinafter Giladi) (US9635004B2) o System and method embodiments are provided for segment integrity and authenticity for adaptive streaming. In an embodiment, the method includes receiving at a data processing system a segment of a media stream, determining, with the data processing system, a digest or a digital signature for the segment, and comparing, with the data processing system, the digest/digital signature to a correct digest or a correct digital signature to determine whether the segment has been modified. Hoffer (US10984128B1) o These solutions concern transforming a communication net work into a scalable network to also automate personalized rapid healthcare support . They integrate biometric identifi cation capabilities into a network entity of , or a resource communicably connectible with , a serving network by using computers to mediate biometric identification and location data . Network operators will provide always on enhanced emergency connectivity for mobility and roaming for user equipment to leverage biometric identification for rapid healthcare support and to produce a unified result set , without risk of undue disclosure of raw biometric data or of selected portions of health profile information . These tech niques also support personalized , urgency - supported , healthcare to optimize biometrically - link identifiers / network keys ( PUSH TO BLINK ) , even over a visited operator's IP services . Some facilitate backwardly compatibility across 2G , 3G , 4G , and other networks , whether a mission critical communication , even one with intermodal content via back haul , is sent via a network that is wireless in any part , or not . Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection The applicant argues on page 1 of the submitted remarks that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C § 101 should be withdrawn but gives no additional argument in light of the amendments. Therefore, examiner reiterates the arguments made even in light of the amendment as detailed in the office action dated 08/26/2024. The 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection is maintained. 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 Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687 /MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 29, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 29, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
May 01, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §101
Oct 24, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 31, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Feb 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 17, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
May 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 27, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Oct 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 23, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12518860
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CALCULATING AN OPTIMUM MEDICATION DOSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12505921
PLATFORM FOR ROUTING CLINICAL DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12488864
APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR ADAPTIVELY CONTROLLING CRYOABLATION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12062438
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATING STANDARD API SPECIFICATION FOR DATA DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN HETEROGENEOUS SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 13, 2024
Patent 12027273
INTERACTIVE GRAPHICAL SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING BODY MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 02, 2024
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
9%
Grant Probability
40%
With Interview (+31.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 46 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month