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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 08/25/2025, the following occurred: Claims 1-14 have been amended. Claims 15-20 are new.
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 1-14 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and a system for in-person encounters and assistance for medical diagnosis and treatment.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) providing a remote medical encounter for a patient; generating a procedure code for the remote medical encounter, wherein the procedure code includes a sub-CPT procedure code that identifies an in-person task to be performed, the sub-CPT procedure code being independent from a full CPT code to enable fractional task delegation; transmitting the procedure code; decoding the sub-CPT procedure code to identify the in- person task; automatically identifying an in-person provider capable of performing the in-person task associated with the sub-CPT procedure code by searching based on one or more criteria and facilitating scheduling of the in- person provider; transmitting a request to the in-person provider to perform the in-person task associated with the sub-CPT procedure code, wherein the request includes a hashed patient identifier generated using a one-way hash function to enable secure access without transmitting sensitive patient data in the clear, and wherein results of the in-person task are entered with access restrictions limiting the in-person provider to post-only updates; transmitting the in-person electronic health record associated with the sub-CPT procedure code and exchanges information between disparate EHR instances while applying the access restrictions; integrating the received in-person health record with the remote health record to form an aggregated health record associated with the procedure code, wherein the integration reconciles the sub-CPT procedure code with the overall CPT procedure code and regarding claim 8- the limitation store medical records associated with remote medical encounters; store a medical record associated with in-person medical encounters; generate and store a procedure code for a remote medical encounter of a patient, wherein the procedure code includes a sub-CPT procedure code that identifies an in-person task to be performed, the sub-CPT procedure code being independent from a full CPT code to enable fractional task delegation, and transmit the sub-CPT procedure code as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a computer-implemented referrer system (in claim 1), a server, at least one processor and a memory (in claim 8), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example the claims encompass method and system for in-person encounters and assistance for medical diagnosis and treatment in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of a computer-implemented referrer system. Claim 8 recites the additional element of a server, at least one processor and a memory. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server/computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recites the additional element of an electronic health records (EHR) bridge, a remote EHR interface, a remote electronic health records system, a referrer system, an in- person health records system, a referral network database, an in-person EHR interface and an in-person HER system. Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of a remote health records system (EHR) system, a referrer system, a referral network database, a referral network, in-person electronic health records (EHR) system, an EHR bridge. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/store/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element of the computer-implemented referrer system, the server, at least one processor and memory to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the electronic health records (EHR) bridge, a remote EHR interface, a remote electronic health records system, a referrer system, an in- person health records system, a referral network database, an in-person EHR interface, an in-person HER system, the remote health records system (EHR) system and the referral network were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-7 and 9-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2 and 9 further define the procedure code, dependent claims 3 and 10 further define scheduling of the in-person task, dependent claims 4 and 11 further define a referral system, dependent claims 5 and 12 further define identifying said in- person provider, dependent claims 6 and 13 further define transmitting the result, dependent claims 7 and 14 further define performing automated reconciliation billing, dependent claims 15 and 18 further define a robodoc performing remote medical encounters, dependent claims 16 and 19 further define selecting the in-person provider and dependent claims 17 and 20 further define the in-person provider. These limitations encompass certain method of organizing human activity and further define the abstract idea. Claim(s) 15 and 18 also includes the additional element of “a robodoc” which merely represents saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicate that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented referrer system” without any recitation in the body of each of the claims describing which step is implemented by a computer or how the computer may be involved. Each of the limitations purely pertain to data manipulation without describing whether a computer may be involved in any particular step or how it may be involved. See, e.g., Ex Parte Langemyr, Appeal No. 2008-1495 at Pg. 20, 2008 Pat App. LEXIS 13 (B.P.A.I. May 28, 2008) (finding that nominal recitation of computer-implementation in the preamble is insufficient to tie the particular steps of the method to the computer). Accordingly, it is unclear where and to what extent the computer-implementation described in the preamble may take place within the body of the claim. The Examiner suggests reciting “wherein each of the following steps are performed by the computer” or similar language.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant rehashes arguments and argues:
Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, as it improves the functionality of networked healthcare systems, akin to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a self-referential database was non-abstract for enabling faster searches and flexible storage. Here, the sub-CPT code's independence from full CPT codes (Spec [0010], FIG. 1), hashed patient identifiers (Spec [0024], FIG. 5), post-only access restrictions (Spec [0027], FIG. 5), and EHR bridge for disparate systems (Spec [0023], FIG. 3) enhance EHR systems' ability to support hybrid care, not merely organizing human activity (e.g., economic practices in Alice or risk hedging in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Regarding 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 provides, generates, transmits, decodes, identifies and integrates data and assigns procedure code, and is purely directed to an abstract idea without any additional elements. Moreover, claim 1 is not directed to clear improvements to technological processes for medical care provisioning that is beyond computer improvements. Improvements to integrated remote and in-person medical encounters to provide more efficient and cost-effective care to patients is an administrative improvement and not an improvement in a technical filed or an improvement to a computer.
Claim 1 aligns with Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a distributed network architecture for data processing was non-abstract. The claim's distributed referrer and EHR bridge systems (FIG. 1, 3) similarly enhance network functionality.
Regarding 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are unlike that of Amdocs as they invoke computers merely as a tool. Amdocs reduced network congestion and provided an improvement upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. Applicants claims do not improve upon conventional functioning of a computer, nor upon conventional technology or technological processes,
The elements recited in claim 1 are comparable to Example 42 (Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated), where real-time data formatting for disparate medical systems was non-abstract. Claim l's sub-CPT delegation and EHR bridge (Spec [0023], FIG. 3) enable real-time task assignment and record integration, a technological improvement. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, as it focuses on improving computer and network functionality in telemedicine through specific technical mechanisms (Spec [0010], [0023]-[0027], FIG. 1, 3, 5, 6), not merely organizing referrals or collecting data.
Regarding 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1, in example 42 provides a method that collects, consolidates and updates information in a standardized format and stores it in a network-based storage to allow multiple users access to this information through a GUI. And, the Specification of Example 42 described that the technological environment to which the claims were confined actually caused the problem of delayed access to data. This provided a technological improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, and thus provided a technological solution to the described technological problem which provided a practical application.
Example 42, claim 1 differs from the Applicant invention as the technological environment to which the Applicants claimed invention is defined is a generic computer component. The generic computer component did not cause the alleged problems. The claims recite various steps of manipulating data which is an abstract idea and does not provide an improvement in a technical field. Further, by definition, the claimed invention pre-empts the abstract idea.
Moreover, the additional elements of claims 1 and 8 are generic computer components for the implementation of the abstract idea. A well-known, general-purpose computer(s) has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Assuming that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, if claim 1 is considered to involve organizing human activity (e.g., managing medical referrals) or data manipulation (e.g., collecting and integrating records), claim 1 integrates these into a practical application through specific, technology-driven steps that address real-world telemedicine challenges.
Regarding 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The cited additional elements of a computer-implemented referrer system, a server, at least one processor and a memory are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server/computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Moreover, the additional elements of the electronic health records (EHR) bridge, a remote EHR interface, a remote electronic health records system, a referrer system, an in- person health records system, a referral network database, an in-person EHR interface, an in-person HER system, the remote health records system (EHR) system and the referral network are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/store/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Example 46 (Livestock Management): Sensor-based health monitoring was eligible for technical improvements. Claim l's referrer and bridge enable precise task delegation and data exchange, akin to sensor-driven monitoring (FIG. 1, 3).
Regarding 5, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants claims are do not provide technical improvements. Task delegation and data exchange are not akin to sensor-driven monitoring.
The following illustrates how claim 1 provides an inventive concept. Non-Conventional Elements: The claim's elements, individually and in combination, are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, as required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and provide an inventive concept. Individual Elements… Ordered Combination: The sequence-generating sub-CPT codes, transmitting them securely, decoding, identifying providers, restricting access, bridging EHRs, and reconciling records-forms a novel architecture, like BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a filtering system's arrangement was inventive. This combination improves hybrid care efficiency, unlike generic computer implementations in Alice or SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Regarding 6, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 element of the computer-implemented referrer system, the server, at least one processor and memory to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the electronic health records (EHR) bridge, a remote EHR interface, a remote electronic health records system, a referrer system, an in- person health records system, a referral network database, an in-person EHR interface, an in-person HER system, the remote health records system (EHR) system and the referral network were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s invention is unlike that of BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’ Whether considered separately or as a whole, Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, and finds them persuasive. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: a method for managing integrated remote and in-person encounters associated with a current procedure terminology (CPT) procedure code using a computer- implemented referrer system and electronic health records (EHR) bridge, the method comprising: providing a remote medical encounter for a patient via a remote EHR interface; generating, at the remote EHR interface, a procedure code for the remote medical encounter, wherein the procedure code includes a sub-CPT procedure code that identifies an in-person task to be performed, the sub-CPT procedure code being independent from a full CPT code to enable fractional task delegation; transmitting the procedure code to a remote EHR system and to a the referrer system; decoding, at the referrer system, the sub-CPT procedure code to identify the in-person task; automatically identifying, at the referrer system, an in-person provider capable of performing the in-person task associated with the sub-CPT procedure code by searching a referral network database based on one or more criteria and facilitating scheduling of the in- person provider; transmitting, from the referrer system, a request to the in-person provider to perform the in-person task associated with the sub-CPT procedure code, wherein the request includes a hashed patient identifier generated using a one-way hash function to enable secure access without transmitting sensitive patient data in the clear, and wherein results of the in-person task are entered into an in-person EHR interface that is stored in an in-person EHR system with access restrictions limiting the in-person provider to post-only updates; transmitting the in-person electronic health record associated with the sub-CPT procedure code from the in-person EHR system to the remote EHR system via the EHR bridge that exchanges information between disparate EHR instances while applying the access restrictions; integrating, at the remote EHR system, the received in-person health record with the remote health record to form an aggregated health record associated with the procedure code, wherein the integration reconciles the sub-CPT procedure code with the overall CPT procedure code.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Pourfallah (US 2012/0253852) discloses restricted-use account payment administration apparatuses, methods and systems. Mohammad (US 2020/0342963) discloses methods and systems for telehealth consultation. Schoenberg (US 2013/0030843) discloses connecting consumers with service providers. DePetro (US 2013/0080181) discloses telehealth care verification and audit logging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683