DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, claim 1, 11, and 20 are objected to.
In light of the amendments, a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation is required.
In light of the amendments, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In light of the amendments, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 03/10/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 20 have been amended; claims 2, 4-5, 12-16, and 18-19 remain unchanged; claims 7-10 and 17 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 03/29/2022
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 Arguments
Claim Objections:
Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections based on the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Examiner withdraws the previous 112(b) rejections based on the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Prong One:
Applicant states that the current claims are directed towards a combination of hardware that interacts with software to make real time decisions using location polling so that physicians can locate persons or clients under-served communities. Applicant also points to the newly-amended “a data processing layer…” limitation. This limitation however is directed towards an abstract idea with additional elements, and can be seen further below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section. Applicant states that the claims improve upon the ability of the computer to make decisions for doctors and patients based on their respective locations. Examiner however respectfully disagrees, as this improvement is not necessarily an improvement to the functioning of the computer, rather, it seems to be an improvement to the abstract idea of making this decision. Applicant cites Enfish. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the claims of Enfish improve the functioning of a computer.
Applicant states that the newly-added limitations are technical in nature and therefore the claims recite an advancement to a technology. The newly-added “a data processing layer…” limitation however is recited in a manner which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology. For example, the recitation of these layers is an afterthought to the claims as it is recited at the end and it does not link with the rest of the claim language.
Applicant also cites to Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States and states that the present claims are similar to those claims in that the claims viewed as a whole are not abstract. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The combination of hardware and software in the present claims are not similar to those of Thales as Thales has an unconventional usage of sensors and an equation to determine the positioning and orientation of an object, thereby improving the previously-standing technology for how position and orientation was determined. The present claims however determining a location for healthcare to be provided using computing components. These are not analogous.
Prong Two:
Applicant states that the amended claims reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Applicant further states that the claims are directed towards a method that makes use of the GPS on devices, different processing layers, and client and physician data, which when viewed in combination with the process steps provide an improved system and method for locating and providing certain services. Applicant further cites McRO, Enfish, and Core Wireless. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the present claims outline process steps of providing care using certain technology in one of an apply it, general-linking, or routine way. Applicant states that the present claims provide care in places where there is little to no care. The claims however do not capture this.
Furthermore, applicant states that paragraph [0050] of the present application describes layers in communication with a server to handle massive quantities of data. Applicant suggests that there is a technological advancement to a practical application that is directed towards systems and methods that integrate dynamic scheduling and management of appointments and telehealth and decision-making modules that provide an output. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the specification does not outline that the usage of these two layers is a technical improvement. Furthermore, the usage of both layers is done so in a manner which generally links the claims to computer science.
Applicant also discusses Weisner and that the present claims are similar in that location data and histories are used to automatically determine whether an in-person appointment or if a tele-health appointment is required. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the location and histories data of Weisner are directed towards improving digital searches (the technological field). the computing technology is thereby improved as the searches are being improved. The present claims however use the location and history data to determine what type of appointment to have. There is not similar improvement to a computing technology here.
Lastly, Applicant states that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that when claimed limitations are drawn to an abstract idea but are integrated into a practical application and are also applied with a particular machine, such limitations satisfy the “significantly more” standard. Applicant states that the present claims are similar as these claims help provide care to those people in underdeveloped communities based on their location, cell service, WIFI, and personal data in a faster and compliant manner. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as, stated above, Examiner does not believe that the claims reflect this statement. First, bad cell service is not limited to underserved communities. Second, this determination seems to be an improvement towards the abstract idea of determining where to provide care as opposed to a technological improvement.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argued with respect to the amended claims. These amendments required an additional reference to address, thus these arguments have been deemed moot in view of the newly-cited art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “using the stream processing” in the newly-added last limitation of each claim, when it should most likely recite “using[ ] the stream-processing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 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. The specification lacks description of what the data processing layer and the logic manipulation layers are structurally leading Examiner to question whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing this invention. This rejection is based on the claim interpretation and is accompanied by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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 limitations “a data processing layer” and “a logic manipulation layer” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification lacks disclosure of corresponding structure that performed the entire claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-6, 11-16, and 18-20 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. Claims 1-6 are drawn to a system, claims 11-16 and 18-19 are drawn to a medium, and claim 20 is drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 18-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) allow the client to input a request and a plurality of client variables, wherein the variables comprise client health inputs, 2) a network for receiving the input request to the physician, 3) receives the input request, 4) outputs a request, 5) allow a physician to receive the request, 6) receive the plurality of variables, 7) ascertain a location of the user and the physician, 8) wherein an entity is configured to determine if the client is in cellular service or out of cellular service, and if the client is out of cellular service, use a last known location of the client device using the entity to poll a database for past client location information to ascertain the client most likely location is based on a plurality of previous known locations or appointment locations of the client, 9) output the location to the physician, 10) wherein if the client is in cellular service, automatically determine whether an in-person appointment or a telehealth appointment is required, and 11) utilizing processing to provide views of batch data and simultaneously using the processing to provide views of online data, wherein the online data comprises client data and physician data. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of business relations). For example, the claims describe organizing and managing appointments between patients and physicians. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-6, 12-16, and 18-19 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 12 add the additional steps of “save and organize the plurality of variables input by the user and the physician”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3-6, 13-16, and 18-19 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-6, 12-16, and 18-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) at least one client device associated with a client, wherein the at least one client device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI), b) a management server in communication with the network, c) a provider-side server wherein the provider-side server is communication with at least one physician device associated with a physician, d) one physician device wherein the at least one physician device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI), e) an encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs, f) a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server, wherein the queue server receives data from a global positioning system (GPS), g) one or more processors, h) a memory, i) databases (electronic), and j) a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the active additional element step of k) “encrypting, via an encryption server in communication with the management server, the client inputs”.
The a) at least one client device associated with a client, wherein the at least one client device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) and d) one physician device wherein the at least one physician device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of a) at least one client device amounts to mere data gathering and recitation of d) one physician device amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, the b) management server in communication with the network, c) provider-side server wherein the provider-side server is communication with at least one physician device associated with a physician, e) encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs, f) queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server, wherein the queue server receives data from a global positioning system (GPS), g) one or more processors, h) memory, and i) databases in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as determining data from a set of data) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0038] where there are general purpose servers, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Lastly, the j) data processing layer and logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing and the additional element step of k) “encrypting, via an encryption server in communication with the management server, the client inputs” in these steps generally links the abstract idea to particular technological environments or fields of use (such as encryption and computer science, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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 do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) at least one client device associated with a client, wherein the at least one client device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI), b) a management server in communication with the network, c) a provider-side server wherein the provider-side server is communication with at least one physician device associated with a physician, d) one physician device wherein the at least one physician device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI), e) an encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs, f) a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server, wherein the queue server receives data from a global positioning system (GPS), g) one or more processors, h) a memory, i) databases, and j) a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of k) “encrypting, via an encryption server in communication with the management server, the client inputs” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The a) at least one client device and d) one physician device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives client device data, and transmits the data to server to then get transferred to a physician device over a network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the current invention determines locations and appointments utilizing b) a management server in communication with the network, c) a provider-side server wherein the provider-side server is communication with at least one physician device associated with a physician, e) an encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs, f) a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server, wherein the queue server receives data from a global positioning system (GPS), g) one or more processors, h) a memory, and i) databases, thus b) – c) and e) – i) are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the j) data processing layer and logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing and the additional element step of k) “encrypting, via an encryption server in communication with the management server, the client inputs” generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to encryption, because limiting application of the abstract idea to encryption is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, a general linking to a particular technological field, or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 18-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0011192 to Arshad et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0235909 to Lozano et al. further in view of U.S. 2014/0379874 to Starr et al. and further in view of CN112685394A to Wang.
As per claim 1, Arshad et al. teaches a system for integrating dynamic scheduling and management of appointments and telehealth conferences, the system comprising:
--at least one client device associated with a user, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where there is an option for a patient to request an encounter with a healthcare provider. A GUI of the patient’s device (client’s device) is displaying this information) wherein the at least one client device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a user to input a request and a plurality of user variables, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where there is GUI that allows input from a patient which corresponds to a selecting of an option by a patient to request an encounter. Also see: paragraph [0304] where there is selection of a provider type by a patient before an appointment is made. A selection of user variables is being received here in addition to an encounter request) wherein the variables comprise client health inputs; (see: paragraph [0304] where there is selection of a provider type by a patient before an appointment is made. The variable being selected here is being considered as client health inputs)
--a network for receiving the input request to the physician; (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where a request is received by a computing device and sent to a server over the internet (a network for a physician to receive this request))
--a management server in communication with the network, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where there is a server (management server) which is in communication with the internet network) wherein the management server receives the input request from the at least one client device, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where the server receives the request from the patient’s device (client device)) wherein the provider-side server is communication with at least one physician device associated with a physician, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where the server enables a healthcare provider to view the encounter requests in the form of a waiting room queue. The healthcare provider has a device (physician device) here and is receiving notifications from the server (functions as both a management server and a provider-side server), and thus is in communication with the server) and wherein the at least one physician device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a physician to receive the request at a the physician device; (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where the physician receives encounter request notifications on a device which has a graphical user interface) and
--a queue server wherein the queue server is configured to receive the plurality of variables, (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where the server here (has the functionality of the queue server) is configured to receive the inputted information which includes a patient’s selection of a provider (plurality of variables) and an encounter request) wherein the queue server receives data from a global positioning system (GPS) of both the physician device and the client device and is configured to ascertain a location of the client device and the physician device, (see: paragraphs [0196] and [0213] where the location of the worker (physician) and patient are received by the system (this contains the functionalities of the queue server) from the mobile computing devices of the users in order to determine a closest worker for dispatching and an ETA using GPS. The server/system here is receiving this data of both individuals and is configured to ascertain a location of the devices using this data) automatically determine something in the form of automatically determine whether an in-person appointment or if a telehealth appointment is required (see: paragraph [0021] where the server here can receive the request and determine if the request is either an immediate encounter or a scheduled encounter based on all of the inputted information (which includes the selection of an encounter type (one of a plurality of variables) and a location of a worker in relation to that patient). An encounter can be a video (telehealth appointment) or a dispatched worker visit (in-person appointment) as explained in paragraph [0196]).
Arshad et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --outputs a request to a provider-side server,
2) --an encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs;
3) --a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server;
4) --wherein the queue server, together with the GPS in the physician device and the client device, is configured determine if the client device is in cellular service or out of cellular service, and if the client device is out of cellular service, use a last known location of the client device using the client side server to poll a database for past client device location information to ascertain the client device most likely location is based on a plurality of previous known locations or appointment locations of the client, and output the location to the physician device, and wherein if the client is in cellular service, automatically determine something; and
5) --a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing to provide views of batch data and simultaneously using the stream processing to provide views of online data, wherein the online data comprises client data and physician data.
Lozano et al. teaches:
1) --outputs a request to a provider-side server, (see: paragraphs [0050] where information is being communicated between servers. Also see: paragraph [0045] where requests can be sent between systems/servers)
2) --an encryption server in communication with the management server, (see: paragraph [0051] where there may be one or more servers which the telemonitoring system may be comprised of and these servers can communicate with each other) wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs; (see: paragraph [0117] where there is encryption and decryption of received data)
3) --a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server (see: paragraph [0051] where there may be one or more servers which the telemonitoring system may be comprised of and these servers can communicate with each other).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) output a request to a provider-side server, use 2) an encryption server in communication with the management server, wherein the encryption server is configured to encrypt and decrypt the client inputs, and use 3) a queue server in communication with the management server and encryption server as taught by Lozano et al. in the system as taught by Arshad et al. with the motivation(s) of protecting private data (see: paragraph [0059] of Lozano et al.).
Starr et al. teaches:
4) --wherein the queue server, together with the GPS in the physician device and the client device, is configured determine if the client device is in cellular service or out of cellular service, (see: paragraph [0023] where there is remote communication between the medication device and a medical service provider. Also see: paragraph [0028] where a medical service provider may be the user and the mediation may be the patient with the medication device, and the location tracking uses GPS. Also see: paragraph [0034] where the location of the medication device is moving out of range, thus there is a determination of whether the device is either in range or out of range using GPS) and if the client device is out of cellular service, use a last known location of the client device using the client side server to poll a database for past client device location information to ascertain the client device most likely location is based on a plurality of previous known locations or appointment locations of the client, and output the location to the physician device, (see: paragraph [0034] where if the medication device (which is the patient device as explained in paragraph [0028]) is out of range from the transmission hub (cellular service), the last known location of the device is being sent to the application 108 and server 150 and a notification is being generated to the user (which is the physician and their device as explained in paragraph [0028]) indicating the device is no longer in range. Also see: paragraph [0035] where the last known location is being provided based on a locate command) and wherein if the client is in cellular service, automatically determine something (see: paragraph [0034] where there is an in range determination and when the device is in range, the device automatically sends the location information).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 4) wherein the queue server, together with the GPS in the physician device and the client device, is configured determine if the client device is in cellular service or out of cellular service, and if the client device is out of cellular service, use a last known location of the client device using the client side server to poll a database for past client device location information to ascertain the client device most likely location is based on a plurality of previous known locations or appointment locations of the client, and output the location to the physician device, and wherein if the client is in cellular service, automatically determine something as taught by Starr et al. in the system as taught by Arshad et al. and Lozano et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of locating assets (see: paragraph [0022] of Starr et al.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the step of automatically determine whether an in-person appointment or if a telehealth appointment is required as taught by Arshad et al. for the step of automatically determining something as disclosed by Starr et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Starr et al. teaches of performing an action when the device is in range thus one could substitute the action with another action to have predictable results of performing an action in response to being within range of a service. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Wang teaches:
5) --a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing to provide views of batch data and simultaneously using the stream processing to provide views of online data, wherein the online data comprises client data and physician data (see: page 3, paragraphs [0008] – [0011] where there is Flink software which includes a pipeline runtime system which can execute batch and stream processing programs in parallel (simultaneously). Also see: page 4, paragraph [0005] where there is a data application layer to visualize data. There is a data processing layer (data detail layer) and logic manipulation layer (data application layer) here which are using both batch processing and stream processing to provide views of online data such as the original data which is input into it. The original data being that of a client and physician is taught using the Arshad reference in paragraph [0213]).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use 5) a data processing layer and a logic manipulation layer configured to utilize both batch-processing and stream-processing to provide views of batch data and simultaneously using the stream processing to provide views of online data, wherein the online data comprises client data and physician data as taught by Wang in the system as taught by Arshad et al. and Lozano et al., and Starr et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of quickly handling data (see: page 1, paragraph [0004] of Wang).
As per claim 2, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Arshad et al. further teaches wherein the database is configured to save and organize the plurality of variables input by the client and the physician (see: paragraph [0021) where data (including input data) is being stored (at least in a temporary manner) when the data is sent to the server computer).
As per claim 3, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Arshad et al. further teaches wherein the variables comprise current client location, client last known location, past conditions, current conditions, history, characteristics of the client, physician specialties, ratings, location, last known location, or any combination thereof (see: paragraph [0018] where there is selection of a desired specialty type of healthcare provider (physician specialties)).
As per claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang references in combination. Arshad et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing instructions that, in integrating dynamic scheduling and management of appointments and telehealth conferences (see: paragraph [0084] where there is a tangible medium for performing the functions of the invention of Arshad et al.).
As per claim 12, claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 2 using the Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang references in combination.
As per claim 13, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the medium of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Arshad et al. further teaches wherein the variables comprise current client location, client last known location, past conditions, current conditions, history, characteristics of the client, physician specialties, ratings, location and the last known location (see: paragraph [0018] where there is selection of a desired specialty type of healthcare provider (physician specialties). Also see: paragraph [0196] where there is a patient location which is used as input to determine a closest healthcare worker. This location can be considered as a current location and a last known location. Also see: paragraph [0082] where characteristics are being received of the user in the form of a user name. Also see: paragraph [0296] where there are patient ratings of providers which are involved here. The provider selection involves the ratings. Also see: paragraph [0338] where there is access rights selection 939 which could include history, current conditions, and past conditions in the form of images).
As per claim 18, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the medium of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Lozano et al. further teaches when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to further encrypt the appointment data whether it be an in person visit or telehealth conference using a second encryption server (see: paragraph [0076] where there is appointment administration which is part of the telemonitoring system. Also see: paragraph [0115] where there is encryption of data. The encryption of data is occurring of data which is being transmitted. This would include data associated with appointment administration. An encryption unit here is performing this encryption. These functionalities can be considered as coming from a second encryption server. The appointment being optionally an in-person appointment or an telehealth conference was taught in the Arshad et al. reference at paragraph [0196]).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the medium of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Lozano et al. further teaches when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to further encrypt the physician side information (see: paragraphs [0117] and [0120] where there is encryption of information. Also see: paragraph [0076] where there are medical staff and caregivers part of the system here. The providers data can be encrypted here before sending it to the system).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 using the Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang references in combination. Arshad et al. further teaches a method for integrating dynamic scheduling and management of appointments and telehealth conferences, incorporated in a system including a client device, and a server in communication with the client device, wherein the server comprises a memory to store instructions and a processor coupled with the memory to process the stored instructions (see: paragraphs [0018] and [0021] where there is server and client device used to perform the functions of the invention of Arshad et al. The computing elements of these devices consist of processors and memory).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0011192 to Arshad et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0235909 to Lozano et al. further in view of U.S. 2014/0379874 to Starr et al. and further in view of CN112685394A to Wang as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0262468 to AlQabandi.
As per claim 4, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the encryption server comprises a transport layer security (TLS), configured to provide communications security over a computer network in a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant manner.
AlQabandi teaches:
--wherein the encryption server comprises a transport layer security (TLS), configured to provide communications security over a computer network in a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant manner (see: paragraph [0040] where there is a TLS protocol to encrypt communications. Also see: paragraph [0043] where the communication is HIPPA compliant).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the encryption server comprises a transport layer security (TLS), configured to provide communications security over a computer network in a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant manner as taught by AlQabandi in the system as taught by Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination with the motivation(s) of protecting user confidentiality (see: paragraph [0043] of AlQabandi).
As per claim 14, claim 14 is similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 4 using the Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., Wang, and AlQabandi references in combination.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0011192 to Arshad et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0235909 to Lozano et al. further in view of U.S. 2014/0379874 to Starr et al. and further in view of CN112685394A to Wang as applied to claims 2 and 11, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0062120 to Wheeler et al.
As per claim 5, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. The combination may not further, specifically teaches wherein the GPS is configured to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client is out of network or out of cellular service, and further configured alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular service.
Wheeler et al. teaches:
--wherein the GPS is configured to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client is out of network or out of cellular service, (see: paragraph [0011] where there is an alert which is sent when the user is out of the range of the network) and further configured alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular service (see: paragraph [0042] where there is a monitoring of a location of an individual and that there is an alert if they stray out of a range. When the user is back within range, monitoring can occur. The monitor is being alerted of the user’s location).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the GPS is configured to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client is out of network or out of cellular service, and further configured alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular service as taught by Wheeler et al. in the medium as taught by Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination with the motivation(s) of tracking the location of people (see: paragraph [0002] of Wheeler et al.).
As per claim 6, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., Wang, and Wheeler et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Arshad et al. further teaches wherein the queue server is configured store messages in the database (see: paragraph [0202] where there is a messaging service where messages are stored in memory).
As per claim 15, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the medium of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. The combination may not further, specifically teach when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client device is out of network or out of cellular service, and further to alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular services.
Wheeler et al. teaches:
--when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client device is out of network or out of cellular service, (see: paragraph [0011] where there is an alert which is sent when the user is out of the range of the network) and further to alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular services (see: paragraph [0042] where there is a monitoring of a location of an individual and that there is an alert if they stray out of a range. When the user is back within range, monitoring can occur. The monitor is being alerted of the user’s location).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to communicate with the client device and the physician device to alert the management server that the client device is out of network or out of cellular service, and further to alert the server when the client is back in network or back in cellular services as taught by Wheeler et al. in the medium as taught by Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination with the motivation(s) of tracking the location of people (see: paragraph [0002] of Wheeler et al.).
As per claim 16, Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination teaches the medium of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Arshad et al. further teaches when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to store messages in the database (see: paragraph [0202] where there is a messaging service where messages are stored in memory).
Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--poll the database for the client device or the physician device location information to ascertain a location of where the client device or the physician device may be based on the previous known locations, appointment locations and home address.
Wheeler et al. teaches:
--poll the database for the client device or the physician device location information to ascertain a location of where the client device or the physician device may be based on the previous known locations, appointment locations and home address (see: paragraph [0005] where there is polling of a phone’s location from a remote server over a cellular network to ascertain a location of the user based on what can be considered as a previous known location in the form of a location of the user).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to poll the database for the client device or the physician device location information to ascertain a location of where the client device or the physician device may be based on the previous known locations, appointment locations and home address as taught by Wheeler et al. in the medium as taught by Arshad et al., Lozano et al., Starr et al., and Wang in combination with the motivation(s) of tracking the location of people (see: paragraph [0002] of Wheeler et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights