DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 08/14/2025.
Claims 6-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-31 have been newly added.
Claims 1-5 and 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-5 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 21-31 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 21-31 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea, which is a method claim.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method for providing patient care, the method comprising:
delivering pre-hospital information to a patient in a graphical user interface, the pre- hospital information including information about treatments for the patient and a pre-operation virtual consult with a caregiver;
delivering post-hospital information to the patient in the graphical user interface, the post-hospital information including information about medications and rehabilitation for the patient;
tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information and the post-hospital information;
based on the tracking, generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements and
sending a communication based on the compliance report to a user electronic computing device associated with the caregiver.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because presenting pre-hospital information to a patient, virtually consulting a pre-operation with a caregiver, delivering post-hospital information about medication and rehabilitation, tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information and the post-hospital information, generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements and sending a communication based on the compliance report to a user electronic computing device associated with the caregiver are parts of a medical workflow, providing healthcare services and tracking a patient’s activities according to required hospital compliancy, which relate to managing human behavior/interactions between people. The foregoing underlined limitations relate to claim 1.
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claim 5 and 21 the claim merely recites specific kinds of data, such as: claim 5 - the pre-hospital information further includes one or more consent forms associated with patient’s upcoming hospitalization and claim 21 - the communication includes the compliance report.
In relation to claims 2-4, 6, 22-26, 28 and 30, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 2 - based on a discharge summary associated with the patient, automatically scheduling one or more appointments for the patient, claim 3 - receiving information such as nutrition, fluid intake, vitals, and activity levels of the patient and automatically documenting the information, claim 6 - tracking whether the patient has reviewed the pre-hospital information, based on the tracking, generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and sending the compliance report to the caregiver, claim 22 - tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking whether the patient spends a pre- determined amount of time reviewing documents related to the patient's hospitalization, claim 23 - tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking whether the patient accesses or scrolls through all documents related to the patient's hospitalization, claim 24 - wherein tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking data identifying the patient's engagement, claim 25 - tracking review by the patient of the post-hospital information includes tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with one or more interactive games, claim 26 - incorporating the vital signs data into the compliance report, claim 28 - determining the patient fails to comply with the pre-hospitalization requirements or the post-hospitalization requirements and generating an alert with the caregiver and claim 30 - incorporating the patient data into the compliance report.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, 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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claim 1, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations done by humans but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a graphical user interface, an electronic game, a user electronic computing device and smart devices include at least one of a smart watch to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed by the humans. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment by the humans but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the graphical user interface, electronic game, user electronic computing device and smart devices include at least one of a smart watch are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding claim 4, the additional limitation “the information related to the patient is received from a user electronic computing device” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 27, the additional limitation “the one or more smart devices include at least one of a smart watch, a Bluetooth-connected scale, a blood pressure monitor, and a glucometer”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amounts to merely using a computer to gather information to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 29, the additional limitation “using at least one of: badge readers, near field communication, RFID, barcode readers, or GPS location tracking”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amounts to merely using a computer to gather information to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 31, the additional limitation “operating a camera and a microphone associated with the user electronic computing device”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amounts to merely using a computer to gather information to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add 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, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to 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 meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 1, regarding the additional limitations of the graphical user interface, electronic game, user electronic computing device and smart devices include the smart watch, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 21-31 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakes (US 2014/0088991 A1) in view of Di Lascia (US 2013/0226608 A1).
Claim 1:
Bakes discloses A method for providing patient care, the method comprising:
delivering pre-hospital information to a patient in a graphical user interface, the pre- hospital information including information about treatments for the patient and a pre-operation virtual consult with a caregiver (See interfaces in Fig. 2, Fig. 7, P0025-P0026, where an emergency room technician is assigned the role of delivering a laboratory test video and a physician is assigned the task of delivering a patient diagnosis explanation video. See patient accessing relevant medical information such as testing procedure and diagnosis presentations in P0052, 0083-P0084 and consent for a procedure in P0065. Also, see [P0049] care provided to its patient by improving patient/caregiver care experiences, which is enhanced with video communication. The enhanced care coordination provides the ability to email and or IM other providers involved in the care of the patient such as admitting team accepting care of patient, specialists providing consultation, and follow up doctors providing for more seamless transitions of care.); and
delivering post-hospital information to the patient in the graphical user interface, the post-hospital information including information about medications and rehabilitation for the patient (See Fig. 1, [P0044] The healthcare communication system 100 also provides communications to the patient 102 at a discharge stage 136. For example, when John is being discharged from the hospital after being treated for a heart condition, the video selection program selects one or more videos related to the suggested lifestyle, diet, exercise regime, etc., for John post-discharge. Also, see if a patient incorrectly answers questions about medications, an immediate message is sent to the pharmacist in the department who could provide bedside education in [P0050] and P0052 ads for nearest pharmacy.).
Although Bakes discloses a graphical user interface for delivering pre-hospital, pre-operational virtual consultation with a caregiver and post-hospital information mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach tracking the patient of the pre-hospital information and the post-hospital information generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements and sending a communication based on the compliance report. Di Lascia teaches:
tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information and the post-hospital information (See Fig. 7, exemplary filling prescription within a week of hospital discharge mentioned in P0109-P0111 patient compliance indicators assessing with a patient care module and/or a patient care plan. Also, see hospital discharge process in P0034, P0040, patient completing and passing quizzes in P0087.);
based on the tracking, generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements (See reporting and surveying patient compliance of medication, care plan, education and monitoring behavior (P0051-P0052), [P0089] include levels of user participation in specific activities, website analytics such as time spent on the site by individual users or user groups, individual and aggregated performance and testing results for education, participation rates.) and
sending a communication based on the compliance report to a user electronic computing device associated with the caregiver (Besides participating providers obtaining patient’s discharged tracking, surveys, adherence and behavior, see P0040, P0083 alerts to providers/participants for activity performed on the patient's behalf.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include tracking the patient of the pre-hospital information and the post-hospital information generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements and sending a communication based on the compliance report as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 2 Bakes discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on a discharge summary associated with the patient, automatically scheduling one or more appointments for the patient (See [P0045] upon discharge of the patient 102, the healthcare communication system 100 may also send coupons for products and services that may be used by the patient during the recuperation stage. Alternatively, the patient 102 may also send email reminders about follow-up appointments, etc. Also, see P0031-P0035 where video to schedule follow-up decision is based on conditions gathered by monitoring videos presented to the patient.).
Regarding claim 3 Bakes discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving information related to one or more of: nutrition, fluid intake, vitals, and activity levels of the patient (See P0044 videos related to the suggested lifestyle, diet, exercise regime, etc. and collected patient data such as lifestyle and recent activities in P0056); and
automatically documenting the information (See monitoring viewing of the patient communication content and generated feedback value in P0038 and exemplary communications in [P0042] all of the communications provided to John via the tablet 104 is recorded and saved on the server 118.).
Regarding claim 4 Bakes discloses The method of claim 1, wherein, the information related to the patient is received from a user electronic computing device (See Fig. 1 exemplary patient John using a tablet 104 mentioned in P0041.).
Regarding claim 5 Bakes discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the pre-hospital information further includes one or more consent forms associated with patient’s upcoming hospitalization (See P0065 where content to and from patient includes consent for a procedure.).
Regarding claim 21 Bakes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communication includes the compliance report (Taught in P0043 as compliance record as a compliance report for regulations mentioned in P0027.).
Regarding claim 22, although Bakes and Di Lascia teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach tracking the patient with a pre- determined amount of time reviewing documents related to the patient's hospitalization. Di Lascia teaches:
wherein tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking whether the patient spends a pre- determined amount of time reviewing documents related to the patient's hospitalization (Taught in P0039-P0040 as patient education materials with testing and performance tracking, post discharge.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include tracking the patient with a pre- determined amount of time reviewing documents related to the patient's hospitalization as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 23, although Bakes and Di Lascia teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach tracking whether the patient accessed or scrolled through documents related to the patient's hospitalization. Di Lascia teaches:
wherein tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking whether the patient accesses or scrolls through all documents related to the patient's hospitalization (Taught in P0039-P0040 as patient education materials with testing and performance tracking, post discharge. Also, see P0059 input and output devices such as keypad, directional pad or knob that could be used for scrolling.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include tracking whether the patient accessed or scrolled through documents related to the patient's hospitalization as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 24, although Bakes and Di Lascia teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with the graphical user interface. Di Lascia teaches:
wherein tracking review by the patient of the pre-hospital information or the post-hospital information includes tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with the graphical user interface (Taught in P0028, P0070, P0077 as patient test scores, P0082 as participation levels the patient reaches. Also, see user interface in P0059-P0060.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with the graphical user interface as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 25, although Bakes and Di Lascia teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with one or more interactive games. Di Lascia teaches:
wherein tracking review by the patient of the post-hospital information includes tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with one or more interactive games (See Fig. 7 step 714, Fig. 8, P0113-P0114 where exchanging points for a perk serve as a game. Also, see user interface in P0059-P0060.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include tracking data identifying the patient's engagement with one or more interactive games as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 26, Bakes teaches further comprising: receiving vital signs data directly from one or more smart devices (SeeP0015 smartphone, P0044 videos related to the suggested lifestyle, diet, exercise regime, etc. and collected patient data such as lifestyle and recent activities in P0056.); and incorporating the vital signs data into the compliance report Taught in P0043 as compliance record as a compliance report for regulations mentioned in P0027.).
Regarding claim 27, although Bakes teaches method of claim 26 mentioned above and Bluetooth connectivity in P0097, Bakes does not explicitly teach smart devices such as smart watch, a Bluetooth-connected scale, a blood pressure monitor, and a glucometer. Di Lascia teaches wherein the one or more smart devices include at least one of a smart watch, a Bluetooth-connected scale, a blood pressure monitor, and a glucometer (See P0038 biometric inputs (blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, weight, and other measures accessible to the patient, care giver, or healthcare provider).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include smart devices such as smart watch, a Bluetooth-connected scale, a blood pressure monitor, and a glucometer as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 28, Bakes teaches further comprising: determining the patient fails to comply with the pre-hospitalization requirements or the post-hospitalization requirements; and generating an alert on the user electronic computing device associated with the caregiver (See Bakes provider alerted in P0087 where the queue of problems viewing videos are color coded red.).
Regarding claim 29, although Bakes teaches method of claim 1 mentioned above, Bakes does not explicitly teach ways of tracking caregiver arrival and departure times. Di Lascia teaches further comprising: tracking caregiver arrival and departure times using at least one of: badge readers, near field communication, RFID, barcode readers, or GPS location tracking; and generating automated reports documenting caregiver visit schedules and durations (See GPS in P0055-P0056 and RFID reader in P0059.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of monitoring healthcare behavior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bakes to include ways of tracking caregiver arrival and departure times as taught by Di Lascia creating opportunities to intervene, support patients and improve transition of care.
Regarding claim 30, Bakes teaches further comprising: receiving patient data regarding nutrition, medication, fluid intake, vital signs data, and exercise; and incorporating the patient data into the compliance report (See P0044, P0085 diet, exercise regimen and videos. See P0050 questions about medications.).
Regarding claim 31, Bakes teaches further comprising: operating a camera and a microphone associated with the user electronic computing device for delivering the pre-operation virtual consult (See P0097 camera, microphone and speaker. See P0049 specialist providing consultation.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because amended claim 1 recites subject matter that improves healthcare delivery and communications through an unconventional arrangement of delivering information, tracking review of the information, and sending communications based on compliance with pre-hospitalization requirements and post-hospitalization requirements. g. see pg. 6 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Besides no technological implementations or improvements being explained or claimed, the instant case is a problem that has already been solved. Unlike intelligent document processing (IDP) which monitors when, how long and which pages someone reads a digital document, the instant case doesn’t even have technical criteria for “tracking review”. The recited limitation, “based on the tracking, generating a compliance report describing whether the patient has complied with pre-hospitalization requirements and post- hospitalization requirements" and "sending a communication based on the compliance report to a user electronic computing device associated with the caregiver" is basic data processing equivalent to using a computer for reporting to a caregiver a patient’s compliance. This is a part of an automated process that has already been solved. Also, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 includes additional elements that, when considered as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. g. see pg. 7 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
The instant case neither enables analyzing compliance against predetermined requirements nor includes a novel integration of patient compliance tracking with automated caregiver communication. Furthermore, the steps or features of: (1) tracking review of pre-hospital and post-hospital information, (2) generating a compliance report based on the tracking, and (3) automatically sending communications to caregiver devices based on the compliance reports are also well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, evidenced by at least Abstract, P0023, P0027, P0053- P0056, P0069-P0084, P0098-P0102 of Ackerman et al. (US 2013/0166319 A1), evidenced by at least P0067-P0068, P0121, P0126 of Amarasingham et al. (US 2015/0213202 A1) and at least Fig. 7, P0034, P0040, P0051-P0052, P0083, P0089, P0109-P0111 of Di Lascia et al. (US 2013/0226608 A1).
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) and 103 and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See Ackerman (US 2013/0166319 A1) and Amarasingham (US 2015/0213202 A1).).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 02/26/2026
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687