DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicant
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claim 19 is currently amended. Claim 20 has not been modified. Claim 1-18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 19-26 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Remarks filed on March 18, 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive. Response has been provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection, starting pg. 5 of Remarks:
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 1-18 and withdraws the 103 rejection from the cancelled claims.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejection, starting pg. 5 of Remarks:
Examiner acknowledges Applicant amendments and withdraws the 112 rejections.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, starting pg. 7 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that like Desjardins, the claims provide an improvement to a technology/a technical field by providing an audit log that accounts for the possibility of insurance fraud by having a patient’s device scan a 2D barcode that is physically posted at a healthcare facility to transmit information that can provide conclusive evidence of the patient’s presence at the facility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as an improved audit log is directed to an improvement in the abstract idea of monitoring a patient’s physical presence to solve an abstract problem of insurance fraud. The fact patterns of Desjardins are specific to the facts before the Appeals Review Panel. As found by the Panel, the claimed “training strategy allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, directly addressing the technical problem of 'catastrophic forgetting' in continual learning systems" represents “technical improvements over conventional systems by addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training.” This analysis represents implementation of the practical application-“improvement” analysis of MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) to the facts before the Panel, by improving the technical process of how a machine learning model is trained.
In the instant application, no such technical improvement is claimed as any improvements are directed towards ways of monitoring a person’s physical presence, which falls under an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors. Furthermore, the recited problem of insurance fraud is an abstract problem that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity as commercial or legal interactions. An improvement to the abstract idea does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”).
Applicant also notes that the cloud server and local server of claim 19 also ensure that patient’s data is not unduly accessible. However, allowing access to data only serves to facilitate an interaction between a user and the computer on which data is made available. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II states: “certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Applicant further notes that claim 22 recites deleting patient-specific data from memory, which could be performed by a receptionist instructed to delete temporarily stored data.
It is important to note that industrial applicability is not analogous to a practical application as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-26 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 19-26). Accordingly, claims 19-26 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner has identified claim 19 as the claim that represent the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 19:
A system for registering a patient upon arrival at a healthcare facility, the system comprising:
a mobile device comprising: a communication circuit; and a processor configured to:
receive a scan of a two-dimensional (2D) barcode associated with the healthcare facility;
determine a unique identifier of the healthcare facility based on the 2D barcode;
transmit, via the communication circuit, the unique identifier of the healthcare facility and a request for data associated with the 2D barcode to a cloud server, wherein the data associated with the 2D barcode comprises data that identifies the healthcare facility;
receive, via the communication circuit, the data associated with the 2D barcode and a plurality of questions;
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) via a display of the mobile device that comprises the plurality of questions; and
transmit responses to the plurality of questions, a first timestamp indicating a time at which the responses to the plurality of the questions are transmitted by the mobile device, and a unique identifier associated with the mobile device to the cloud server via the communication circuit; and
a local server comprising: a communication circuit; and a processor configured to:
receive, via the communication circuit, the responses to the plurality of questions, the first timestamp indicating the time at which the responses to the plurality of the questions were transmitted by the mobile device, and the unique identifier of the mobile device from the cloud server; and
determine a second timestamp at which the responses and the unique identifier of the mobile device were received;
determine that the responses match to information associated with an existing patient record;
determine that the existing patient record is associated with an appointment that is scheduled within a predetermined amount of time of at least one of the first timestamp or the second timestamp; and
log the responses to the patient questionnaire, the unique identifier, and the second timestamp in an audit log, wherein the processor being configured to log the responses to the patient questionnaire, the unique identifier, and the second timestamp in the audit log comprises creating an indication in the existing patient record that indicates that the patient has arrived for the appointment.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors. The claim elements are directed towards “receive a scan of a two-dimensional (2D) barcode”, “receive,…, the data associated with the 2D barcode and a plurality of questions”, “transmit,…,responses to the plurality of question,…”, “receive,…, the responses to the plurality of questions,…”, and “store the responses,…”, which amount to describing a patient check-in. Checking in patients is an activity that could otherwise be performed by a hospital receptionist instructed to provide intake forms including certain data and asking for responses to questions as well as a timestamp and device identifier. Further claim elements are directed towards “log the responses to the patient questionnaire, the unique identifier, and the second timestamp in an audit log, wherein the processor being configured to log the responses to the patient questionnaire, the unique identifier, and the second timestamp in the audit log comprises creating an indication in the existing patient record that indicates that the patient has arrived for the appointment”, which is also characterized as managing personal behaviors, as auditing, documenting, and ensuring a patient has arrived could otherwise be performed by an auditor who monitors a patient to ensure best practices.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional elements” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Additional elements cited in the Claims:
a mobile device (1-4,7,9,16,19-20); a communication circuit (1, 19); a processor (1-2,6-8,14,19-20); a cloud server (1-2,4,19); a graphical user interface (1,19-20); a display (1,19-20); a local server (1-2,4,6-8,14, 19); memory (1,4,9)
Any computing devices that would be able to perform the method are taught at a high level of generality such that the claim elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic component capable of performing the claim limitations. [0019] of Applicant specification recites: “The device 130 may be a computing device, such as the mobile device 124, the cloud server 112, the local server 114, a processing device, a central computing device, and/or another computing device in the load control system 100.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to computing devices as a variety of generic computing devices are simply applied to perform the abstract idea.
The communication circuits are also taught at a high level of generality. [0023] of Applicant specification recites: “The communication circuit 134 may perform wireless and/or wired communications. The communication circuit 134 may be a wired communication circuit capable of communicating on a wired communication link. The wired communication link may include an Ethernet communication link, an RS-485 serial communication link, a 0-10 volt analog link, a pulse-width modulated (PWM) control link, a Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI) digital communication link, and/or another wired communication link. The communication circuit 134 may be configured to communicate via power lines (e.g., the power lines from which the device 130 receives power) using a power line carrier (PLC) communication technique. The communication circuit 134 may be a wireless communication circuit including one or more RF or infrared (IR) transmitters, receivers, transceivers, and/or other communication circuits capable of performing wireless communications.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to communication circuits as a variety of generic communication modalities are simply applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data.
The graphical user interface and display are also taught at a high level of generality. [0027] of Applicant specification recites: “The control circuit 131 and/or the display may generate a graphical user interface (GUI) generated via software for being displayed on the device 130 (e.g., on the display of the device 130).” No specific, technical improvements are being made to graphical user interfaces as it is simply software being applied to perform an abstract idea on a display of a generic computing device.
The memory is also taught at a high level of generality. [0022] of Applicant specification recites: “The memory 132 may include a non-removable memory and/or a removable memory. The non-removable memory may include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), a hard disk, and/or any other type of non-removable memory storage. The removable memory may include a subscriber identity module (SIM) card, a memory stick, a memory card, and/or any other type of removable memory.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to memory devices as a variety of generic memory devices are simply applied to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 20: This claim recites wherein the processor of the mobile device is further configured to: display, via the GUI, the data that identifies the healthcare facility; prompt a user of the mobile device to confirm that they are at a correct healthcare facility and prompt the user to enter the responses to the plurality of questions via the GUI; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors as monitoring a patient and prompting them to perform an action. This claim further teaches a GUI at a high level of generality such that it is only applied to facilitate performance of the abstract idea.
Claim 21: This claim recites wherein the unique identifier of the mobile device comprises one or more of an electronic serial number (ESN), an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), or a mobile equipment identifier (MEID); which only serves to limit the type of unique identifier.
Claim 22: This claim recites the system further comprising the cloud server, and wherein after the local server has received the responses to the plurality of questions, the first timestamp indicating the time at which the responses to the plurality of the questions were transmitted by the mobile device, and the unique identifier of the mobile device, the cloud server is configured to delete the responses to the plurality of questions, the first timestamp indicating the time at which the responses to the plurality of the questions were transmitted by the mobile device, and the unique identifier of the mobile device from memory; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, as following rules concerning temporary data storage, as a receptionist could delete temporarily stored data. This claim teaches the cloud server at a high level of generality such that it is only applied to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 23: This claim recites wherein the plurality of questions comprise one or more facility- specific questions, and wherein the responses comprise responses to the facility-specific questions; which only serve to limit the type of questions and responses that a patient administrator would be capable of asking and answering during a check-in interaction, further describing the abstract idea.
Claim 24: This claim recites wherein the processor of the local server is further configured to create an association between the responses and the existing patient record; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, as managing human behaviors, as associating patient responses with a patient record can be performed by a receptionist instructed to view intake forms and a patient file.
Claim 25: This claim recites wherein the responses comprise one or more of an email address associated with a user of the mobile device, a date of birth (DOB) of the user, and a phone number associated with the user, and wherein the processor of the local server is configured to determine that the responses match to the information associated with the existing patient record based on one or more of the email address, the DOB, and the phone number; which only serves to limit the type of responses that a patient would answer during a check-in interaction, further describing the abstract idea. This claim further teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing activity, as ensuring that responses match an existing patient record can be performed by a receptionist instructed to process intake forms.
Claim 23: This claim recites wherein the processor of the local server is further configured to mark the patient as having arrived at the healthcare facility; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, as managing human behaviors, as marking a patient as having arrived can be performed by a receptionist instructed to observe/monitor the physical presence of the patient.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 20-26, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 20-26, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 20-26, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). 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.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 19-26 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Medical Patient Billing Session Using A Temporary Identity (US 20170344709), which teaches deleting temporarily stored data including an identity associated with a patient check-in.
Perdana (Perdana; Ridho Hendra Yoga, Hospital Queue Control System using Quick Response Code (QR Code) as Verification of Patient’s Arrival, 2019, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 10, Iss. 8), which teaches using QR codes for patients to scan to facilitate the check-in process and verify patient’s arrival.
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 DAVID CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th:8:30-5:30 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, 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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights