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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/05/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is unity of invention in that all the independent claims share a common technical contribution (receiving EHRs, physical representation, mapping, and providing). The Applicant also argues that there is no substantial burden on the Examiner due to the commonality of the subject matter.
This is not found persuasive because U.S. restriction practice (35 U.S.C. 121) was proper for this application, and not PCT (35 U.S.C. 371) restriction practice. Therefore, the restriction is not made on the grounds of unity of invention and a shared technical feature. Instead, the inventions (Invention I: process; Invention II: system) are distinct if it can be shown that either (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed (Invention I) can be practiced by a materially different apparatus or by hand, such as by drawing the pictorial representation with pen and paper. The process as claimed (Invention I) can also be practiced by a materially different apparatus, such as one that does not require a computing device configured to access non-transitory processor-readable media having instructions that cause the computing device to perform method steps. Also, a serious search burden would exist because of the following reasons:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 63/372,207, filed 02/24/2022. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
*The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed 12/19/2024 does not include reference to U.S. Provisional Application 63/372,207, despite the Applicant’s specification stating that the instant application claims priority to PRO 63/372,207.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 320, 330, 340, 350, 360, 370, 380, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480, 510, 512, 514, 520, 522, 524, 526, and 528. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
*Note: Figs. 3-5 contain several reference characters that are not included in the specification.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 6-8 and 11 are blurry and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please remove “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2”, “Fig. 3”, etc. on the bottom of each page of the specification.
Par. [0001], line 2: “February 7, 2022” should be changed to “February 24, 2022”.
Par. [0047], line 12: “(EHP)” should be changed to “(EHR)”.
Par. [0049], line 1: “Receive” should be changed to “receive”.
Par. [0053], line 1: “In some embodiments, the electronic health records (EHR).” is an incomplete sentence. Please revise.
Par. [0062]: incomplete sentence. Please revise.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6: “plurality of user’s” should be changed to “plurality of users’”.
Line 9: “providing, a physical representation” should be changed to “providing a physical representation”. Please remove comma.
Line 15: “user’s plurality of organs” should be changed to “user’s various organs”.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “affect the overall health score is derived” should be changed to “affect how the overall health score is derived”.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Please enter to the line below and indent each new limitation following a semicolon in the list. For instance, please enter “comparison of the user’s status …. demographic” to the next line and indent.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4: “(EHP)” should be changed to “(EHR)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 the limitation "the plurality of user’s electronic medical records" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s health care provider" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s electronic health records (EHR) partners" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation of “user” throughout the claims (e.g., user’s health care provider (claim 1, line 7), user’s whole body-avatar (Claim 2, line 1), user’s customized overall health score (Claim 4, lines 1-2), etc. – there are several more instances in claim 1 and throughout the claims) renders claims 1-9 indefinite. It is unclear whether the user is synonymous with “an individual” that was introduced in claim 1 (line 2), since “a user” was never introduced. Or, is the user separate from the individual? Potentially consider changing the first instance to “a health care provider of the individual”, for example.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “physical representation” in line 9, whereas a pictorial representation was already introduced in claim 1 (line 2). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended for “physical representation” and “pictorial representation” to refer to the same object of the claims. Consider changing “a physical representation” to “the pictorial representation”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s various organs and body parts" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s whole-body avatar" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the user’s whole body avatar” renders claim 1 (line 12) indefinite. It is unclear whether the whole body avatar is synonymous or different from “a physical representation” (Claim 1, line 9) and “a pictorial representation” (Claim 1, line 2).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the risk" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the Severity Risk Index (SRI) of the plurality of medical records” renders claim 1 (line 17) indefinite. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the Severity Risk Index (SRI) representing the risk of a plurality of ailments introduced earlier in claim 1 (line 14).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s customized overall health score" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a user’s whole-body avatar” in line 1, whereas a user’s whole body avatar was already introduced in a claim that claim 2 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different whole-body avatar. Consider changing to “the whole-body avatar”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the visual representation”, and it is unclear if this is synonymous or different form “pictorial representation” and “physical representation” mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the user’s status" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “such an ailment” renders claim 7 (line 6) indefinite. It is unclear what the meaning of this limitation is and if there is a particular ailment that the claim intends to refer to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an ailment” in lines 7 and 8, whereas an ailment was already introduced in claim 7 (line 6). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different ailment. Consider changing to “the ailment”.
The limitation “such health topics” renders claim 7 (line 9) indefinite. It is unclear what the meaning of this limitation is and if there are particular health topics that the claim intends to refer to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the user interface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electronic health records (EHR) databases" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of collecting and outputting/displaying data) without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of mapping patient data and representing data from electronic health records of an individual through a pictorial representation of their human body (i.e., process), and thus meets the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claim 1, the following steps recite an abstract idea:
“mapping, on the display of the user’s whole-body avatar, the user’s electronic health records (EHR) information data into a plurality of visual representations comprising a Severity Risk Index (SRI) representing the risk of a plurality of ailments mapped over the user’s plurality of organs and body parts” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could observer a user’s electronic health records and map/correspond (i.e., evaluation) the health records to visual representations of the user’s organs and body parts.
“providing, based on a function of the user’s electronic health records (HER) information data, the Severity Risk Index (SRI) of the plurality of medical records, and the medical records laboratory results, the user’s customized overall health score” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could make an evaluation of an overall score based on obtained information (e.g., medical records).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding claim 1, the claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
“at least one communication network”, “a plurality of user computing devices”, and “a display” are all recited with a high level of generality. The communication network is described in relation to a server in communication with a plurality of clients (Par. [0041]). The display is described as a computer display (Par. [0059]). The involvement of the “communication network”, “user computing devices”, and “display” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that they amount to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)]. The involvement of “receiving … electronic health records (EHR) respectively representing information from the plurality of user’s electronic medical records, procured from the user’s health care provider or the user’s electronic health records (EHR) partners” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity in that it is merely involved with gathering and collecting data [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. The involvement of “providing, a physical representation on a display, including the user’s various organs and body parts, represented in a color-coded system reporting the related electronic health records (HER) data representing a plurality of medical records laboratory results” amounts to merely outputting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Furthermore, the “communication network”, “user computing devices”, and “display”, along with their functions and components do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea when considered in combination because these elements are recited at a high level of generality and their related functions and components are merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claim 1, when considered either individually or in an ordered combination, are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “communication network”, “user computing devices”, and “display”, along with their associated functions and components, are recited with a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(d)].
“receiving … electronic health records (EHR) respectively representing information from the plurality of user’s electronic medical records, procured from the user’s health care provider or the user’s electronic health records (EHR) partners” is receiving data, a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity [MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Symantec]. Also, the involvement of the “communication network”, “user computing devices”, and “display” amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network [MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Symantec].
The involvement of the “display” is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by Shum (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0021269) at the Abstract (“… an electronic device, including conventional electronic display devices that are known and commercially available (e.g., cellular telephones, PDAs, pagers, beepers, MP3 or other audio players, radios, portable televisions, portable DVD players, other video playing devices, watched, etc.”).
In this case, well-known elements of a general computer system and well-known elements for data gathering and outputting are used to implement the abstract idea of mapping patient data and representing data from electronic health records of an individual through a pictorial representation of their human body. Also, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of presenting a user’s medical data is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Dependent claims
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 7, the limitations only further define the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the limitations only further define insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data.
Regarding dependent claims 8-9, the limitations only further define insignificant extra-solution activity of generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Francis (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0055758). The article “Using Blockchain for Electronic Health Records” by Shahnaz, et al. is relied upon as evidence for claim 9.
Regarding claim 1, Francis teaches (Fig. 4A) a method of mapping patient data and representing data from electronic health records of an individual through a pictorial representation of their human body (Abstract – method for delivering to a user a biometric display containing a graphic representation of the user that communicates health related information about the user; Par. [0002]; Par. [0004]; Par. [0045]; Par. [0072-0073] – Table 1, medical records; Par. [0080] – electronic medical records may be utilized as data input sources) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 12 – network) receiving, over at least one communication network from each of a plurality of user computing devices operated by each of a plurality of users, electronic health records (EHR) respectively representing information from the plurality of user's electronic medical records, procured from the user's health care provider or the user's electronic health records (EHR) partners (Par. [0004] – input from third party resources, such as health care provider, a biometric monitor, an exercise monitor, a scheduling resource, or the like; Par. [0009] – receiving health related information associated with the user may include receiving from a health database and over the communication network the health related information 4a
associated with the user; Par. [0032]);
(Fig. 1, # 22 – diagnostic laboratory, Fig. 4A, # 50 – exemplary biometric display, i.e. physical representation) providing, a physical representation on a display, including the user's various organs and body parts, represented in a color-coded system reporting the related electronic health records (EHR) data representing a plurality of medical records laboratory results (Par. [0032] – diagnostic laboratory serves as input for health database; Par. [0045] – active code flags are color-coded on a red-orange-yellow-green paradigm);
(Fig. 4A) mapping, on the display of the user's whole-body avatar, the user's electronic health records (EHR) information data into a plurality of visual representations comprising a Severity Risk Index (SRI) representing the risk of a plurality of ailments mapped over the user's plurality of organs and body parts (Par. [0045-0046] – For example, the fifth active code flags 60 are positioned on the character’s heart, thoracic, and lower right abdominal regions and represent cholesterol data, triglyceride data, and body mass index data, respectively. The fifth active code flags 60 may be green circles, indicating low risk factor.); and
(Fig. 3; Fig. 11, # 112) providing, based on a function of the user's electronic health records (EHR) information data, the Severity Risk Index (SRI) of the plurality of medical records, and the medical records laboratory results, the user's customized overall health score (Par. [0027] – a color-coded health status meter presents the user with a general overview score of their well-being; Par. [0043-0044] – the system may also provide a snapshot view of user’s overall scores associated with each of the subcategories in this category; Par. [0059]).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 2, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, (Fig. 4A, # 50) creating a user's whole-body avatar by using an image-capturing device or picture file uploaded to the communication network, which is aggregated with the electronic health records (EHR) data (Par. [0043] – The biometric display 50 may be based on the user’s digital photograph uploaded into the system).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 3, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, providing further additional hidden details about the Severity Risk Index (SRI) through a clickable navigation link to data attached to the visual representation (Par. [0012] – display color-coded flags associated with the biometric display serve as click-prompts that permit the user to access a secondary level of more detailed information associated with the particular body part or function represented by the biometric display).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 4, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, (Fig. 4B – last recorded; Fig. 14, # 412) providing a history of the user's customized overall health score on the display (Par. [0027]; Par. [0043-0044]; Par. [0050]; Par. [0070]).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 5, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, (Fig. 3, # 504; Fig. 4A, # 64 – bad/total cholesterol, e.g., score driver; Fig. 8; Fig. 10) providing a plurality of score drivers, wherein the score drivers comprise factors representing user-controlled parameters, activities, behaviors, and lifestyles that affect the overall health score is derived (Par. [0044] – vital indicators, i.e. score driver; Par. [0047]; Par. [0054]; Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 6, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 2, “my info”) the electronic health records (EHR) include information representing at least one of name, DNA, birthdate, gender, age, height, weight, heart rate, blood pressure, blood type, and blood glucose (Par. [0009]; Par. [0043]).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 7, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, (Fig. 13, # 325) providing a connection to a social media network through the communication network (Par. [0015]; Par. [0055-0056]; Par. [0066]), to present to the user at least one of the following:
medical status of the user's organ; comparison of the user's status compared to other user's status in the same age group or demographic (Par. [0052] – the system may show status of the user as it compares to national recommendations);
a list of caregivers or physicians that can help with such an ailment; a list of services or products that can help with an ailment (Par. [0028] – encourages user to get routine wellness screenings);
a list of health care coaches that can educate the user about an ailment; a list of influencers that are knowledgeable in such health topics;
a network of other users with similar ailments; or connection to the user's family, friends or classmates from user's local health club or gym (Par. [0015] – sharing goals with friends via social media; Par. [0066-0067]).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 8, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 1, # 30 and 32) the communication network provides a virtual assistant embedded within the user interface and connected to the communication network to interact with the user to provide voice-driven navigation of the electronic health records (EHP) using natural language processing (NLP) (Par. [0010] – Generating health parameters may include generating active code flags which are voice-activated; Par. [0024] – personal digital assistant; Par. [0035]).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Francis.
Regarding claim 9, Francis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 1, # 20) the electronic health records (EHR) databases are web 3.0 compliant (Par. [0032-0033]; The article “Using Blockchain for Electronic Health Records” by Shahnaz, et al. evidences that it is well known that blockchain (i.e., web 3.0) can be used for electronic health records for its benefits in security, privacy, confidentiality, and decentralization).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Francis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ash, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0158968)
Kostense, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0263482)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3796