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. Claims 1- 2 and 5-9 are pending and under examination. Claims 3-4 and 10-20 are withdrawn in view of the restriction. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A1 in the reply filed on 09/24/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 3-4 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/24/2025. 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- 2 and 5-9 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. Step 1 Claims 1- 2 and 5-9 are drawn to a method for remote monitoring of a patient which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Step 2A | Prong One Claims 1- 2 and 5-9 (Group I) recite a method of remote monitoring a patient, the method comprising: monitoring the patient under a first modality, wherein the first modality blocks identification of the patient; determining whether an event is detected by the first modality; and when an event is detected, monitoring the patient under a second modality, wherein the second modality is different from the first modality and includes capturing images of the patient . The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below. Examiner notes that independent claim 1 does not contain any additional elements. Dependent Claims 2 and 5-9 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the first modality includes capturing light detection and ranging (lidar) data to detect a location of the patient inside a patient environment , Claim 5 transferring a transmission of the images captured under the second modality to a device operated by a clinician authorized to view protected health information , Claim 6 recites receiving a request from the patient to start a telehealth consultation; obtaining a live image of the patient; obtaining a stored image of the patient; comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient; and when the live image of the patient matches the stored image of the patient, initiating the telehealth consultation with a clinician remotely located with respect to the patient , Claim 7 recites when the live image of the patient does not match the stored image of the patient, terminating the telehealth consultation , Claim 8 recites wherein comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient includes using facial recognition technolog y and Claim 9 recites wherein the stored image of the patient is obtained from an electronic medical record of the patient , but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1 . Step 2A | Prong Two Furthermore, Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not contain any additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) . Step 2B Furthermore, the Claims do not include any additional elements , and therefore there are no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception . Dependent Claims 2 and 5-9 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the y do not recite any additional elements . Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are nonetheless 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 ( 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 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. Claim s 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0154582 A1) in view of Johnson and del Carpio (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0280075 A1) (hereinafter del Carpio to avoid confusion between Johnson ‘582) . Regarding claim 1 , Johnson discloses a method of remote monitoring a patient, the method comprising: monitoring the patient under a first modality, wherein the first modality blocks identification of the patient (Paragraphs [0053] and [0106] discuss monitoring the patient using optical sensors including LIDAR, construed as blocking the identification of the patient. ) ; determining whether an event is detected by the first modality (Paragraph [0086] discusses using the optical sensors to detect an event. ) ; but Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose: when an event is detected, monitoring the patient under a second modality, wherein the second modality is different from the first modality and includes capturing images of the patient. del Carpio teaches when an event is detected, monitoring the patient under a second modality, wherein the second modality is different from the first modality and includes capturing images of the patient (Paragraph s [0021] , [ 0040-0041 ] and [0048] discuss using a secondary camera to capture a different or more detailed view of the patient in response to detecting an event .). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include monitoring the patient under a second modality when an event is detected, as taught by del Carpio , in order to provide “ enhanced or supplemental monitoring ( del Carpio , Paragraph [00 4 8]). Regarding claim 2 , Johnson discloses wherein the first modality includes capturing light detection and ranging (lidar) data to detect a location of the patient inside a patient environment (Paragraph [0053] discusses wherein the modalities in LIDAR data to detect the location of the patient in the patient environment.) . Regarding claim 5 , Johnson discloses transferring a transmission of the images captured under the second modality to a device operated by a clinician authorized to view protected health information (Paragraph s [ 0068- 0069] discuss sending alert to the patient’s caregiver that includes images of the patient.) . Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of del Carpio , and in further view of Joao (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096534 A1) . Regarding claim 6 , Johnson does not appear to disclose: receiving a request from the patient to start a telehealth consultation; obtaining a live image of the patient; obtaining a stored image of the patient; comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient; and when the live image of the patient matches the stored image of the patient, initiating the telehealth consultation with a clinician remotely located with respect to the patient. Joao teaches: receiving a request from the patient to start a telehealth consultation (Paragraph [0330] discusses a patient initiating a telehealth consultation. ) ; obtaining a live image of the patient (Paragraph [0333] discuses that at the start of the call, the provider can take a picture or photograph of the patient to verify their identify. ) ; obtaining a stored image of the patient (Paragraph s [0211] and [0333] discu s s that at the start of the call, the provider can take a picture or photograph of the patient to verify their identify. ) ; comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient (Paragraph s [0211] and [0333] discus s that at the start of the call, the provider can take a picture or photograph of the patient to verify patient’s identify by comparing to a previous picture .) ; and when the live image of the patient matches the stored image of the patient, initiating the telehealth consultation with a clinician remotely located with respect to the patient (Paragraph [0333] discusses verifying the patient’s identity prior to starting the telehealth visit.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include verifying the patient’s identity , as taught by Joao , in order to provide “ facilitate and/or to conduct remote or virtual conferences, discussions, and/or consultations, via and/or through the use of video calls, video chat sessions, and/or videoconferences, with and between an individual, a patient, and/or a caregiver for the individual or the patient, a healthcare provider, a healthcare insurer or a healthcare payer, and/or an intermediary ( Joao , Paragraph [00 82 ]). Regarding claim 9 , Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the stored image of the patient is obtained from an electronic medical record of the patient. Joao teaches wherein the stored image of the patient is obtained from an electronic medical record of the patient (Paragraphs [0040] and [0211-0212] discuss the patient’s electronic medical record includes all information related to the patient and captured during the session in the database, include pictures of the patient.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include store pictures of the patient in the patient’s electronic medical record , as taught by Joao , in order to allow for “ later retrieval and use as needed or desired by any provider, payer, patient, individual, or intermediary ( Joao , Paragraph [0 212 ]). ” Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of del Carpio and Joao , and in further view of Fish (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0407668 A1) . Regarding claim 7 , Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose when the live image of the patient does not match the stored image of the patient, terminating the telehealth consultation. Fish teaches when the live image of the patient does not match the stored image of the patient, terminating the telehealth consultation (Paragraph s [0108-0109] discuss terminating the remote access session if the user is not authenticated.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include terminating the session if the patient’s identity is not verified , as taught by Fish , in order to confirm the identity of the user before allowing access ( Fish , Paragraph [0 109 ]). Regarding claim 8 , Johnson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient includes using facial recognition technology. Fish teaches wherein comparing the live image of the patient with the stored image of the patient includes using facial recognition technology (Paragraph [0109] discusses using facial recognition to verify a patient’s identity.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson to include facial recognition , as taught by Fish , in order to confirm the identity of the user before allowing access ( Fish , Paragraph [0 109 ]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4782 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 MT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jason Dunham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8109 . 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. /RACHELLE L REICHERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686