Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/192,598

SYSTEM AND METHOD OF INTEGRATION OF SERVICE ENGINE PLATFORM WITH AN EMR SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 29, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, SHERYL GOPAL
Art Unit
3685
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Teledact Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
13%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
31%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 13% of cases
13%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 23 resolved
-39.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
57
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 23 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 17, 2025 has been entered. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-7 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-7 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites: A service engine system for delivery of virtual care and health care service services for patients comprising: a computer processor operable via a set of instructions storable in relation to a non- transient memory device; a web portal configured to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) for data entry; a service engine module configured to; integrate services including: an email server supporting one or more email systems; a short messaging service (SMS) server; a payment module supporting billing and credit card payments; a call center support module; a fax server; a telephony module supporting landline and cellular calls; and an electronic medical records (EMR) module supporting an EMR systems; communicate across multiple communication channels including short message service (SMS), email, phone, text-to-voice, and voice-to-text; determine whether a healthcare service should be billed to public or private insurance based on patient location, physician location, employment status, provincial or state service rules; access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) for real-time eligibility confirmation and secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers; access Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) resources and FHIR Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to provide a standardized interface with the EMR module, EMR systems and EMR APIs to view and update patient information; wherein the service engine module and the EMR module is further configured to support the method steps of: receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein patient information further comprises patient data, appointment data, appointment data, observation data or service request data; storing the patient information in a standardized format in a plurality of network- based non-transitory storage devices having a collection of medical records stored thereon; providing remote access to users over a network so any one of the users can update the patient information in the collection of medical records in real time through the user’s GUI connected to the web portal; converting, by the service engine module, the non-standardized updated information into the standardized format supported by the HL7 standards protocol for connectivity and interoperability, storing the standardized updated patient information in the collection of medical records in the standardized format at the EMR module or the EMR system; automatically generating a message containing the updated information about the patient information by the service engine module whenever updated information has been stored; and transmitting the message to the patient and other users over the computer network in real time, so the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information; wherein the integration of the modules, billing, and communication channels creates a unified data picture by combining healthcare service provider data, EMR data and insurance coverage data thereby providing a mechanism to make faster decisions and shorter delivery of patient care. Step 2A Prong One The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of determining, creating, generating, and converting ) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “service engine system”, “a computer processor operable via a set of instructions storable in relation to a non- transient memory device”, “module”, “server”, “system”, and “device”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the system language, the claim encompasses the user processing data and organizing it. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes human activity because the recitation of generic computer components and functions such as supporting and generating also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to provide services necessary to support a patient’s care), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” Dependent claims 2-7 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2 , reciting specific phones that are supported by the telephony module of the system but for recitation of generic computer components/functions). Step 2A Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional limitations: Claim 1 recites: “service engine system”, “a computer processor operable via a set of instructions storable in relation to a non- transient memory device”, “a web portal”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “module”, “server”, “systems”, “SMS”, “access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) for real-time eligibility confirmation and secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers”, “access Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) resources and FHIR Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to provide a standardized interface with the EMR module, EMR systems and EMR APIs to view and update patient information”, “receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein patient information further comprises patient data, appointment data, appointment data, observation data or service request data”, “storing the patient information in a standardized format in a plurality of network- based non-transitory storage devices having a collection of medical records stored thereon”, “providing remote access to users over a network so any one of the users can update the patient information in the collection of medical records in real time through the user’s GUI connected to the web portal”, “storing the standardized updated patient information in the collection of medical records in the standardized format at the EMR module or the EMR system”, “communicate across multiple communication channels including short message service (SMS), email, phone, text-to-voice, and voice-to-text”, and “transmitting the message to the patient and other users over the computer network in real time, so the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information; wherein the integration of the modules, billing, and communication channels creates a unified data picture by combining healthcare service provider data, EMR data and insurance coverage data thereby providing a mechanism to make faster decisions and shorter delivery of patient care”. In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which: • Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of “service engine system”, “a computer processor operable via a set of instructions storable in relation to a non- transient memory device”, “a web portal”, “module”, “server”, “systems”, and “SMS” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. • Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the recitation of: “a graphical user interface (GUI)” “access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) for real-time eligibility confirmation and secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers” “access Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) resources and FHIR Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to provide a standardized interface with the EMR module, EMR systems and EMR APIs to view and update patient information” “receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein patient information further comprises patient data, appointment data, appointment data, observation data or service request data” “storing the patient information in a standardized format in a plurality of network- based non-transitory storage devices having a collection of medical records stored thereon” “providing remote access to users over a network so any one of the users can update the patient information in the collection of medical records in real time through the user’s GUI connected to the web portal” “storing the standardized updated patient information in the collection of medical records in the standardized format at the EMR module or the EMR system” “transmitting the message to the patient and other users over the computer network in real time, so the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information; wherein the integration of the modules, billing, and communication channels creates a unified data picture by combining healthcare service provider data, EMR data and insurance coverage data thereby providing a mechanism to make faster decisions and shorter delivery of patient care”. Dependent claims 2-7 recite the following additional limitations Claim 2: “cellular” Claim 4: “gateway” Claim 5: “middleware” In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which: Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of “middleware” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. • Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as: Recitation of cellular which indicates access to a cellular radio system so it can be used over a wide area, without a physical connection to a network. Recitation of gateway Recitation of gateway which facilitates the requests and delivery of data and services Dependent claims 3, 6, and 7 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in claims 2, 4, and 5, and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. 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, machine learning model, or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B Claims 1 does not include additional elements 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: A system in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. 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 well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields as demonstrated by: Recitation of engine which is a general software system/program used to provide services (Para 0020, Nakamura et al (US20190156947A1) discloses: “… is coordinated by the rules engine 114, which schedules the execution of the algorithms 118 and coordinates the provision of the patient data…”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of web portal which is a platform used to collect information from different sources into a single interface used to provide relevant information (Col. 7, Line 23, Kovalan (US10930397B2) discloses: “web portal”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of email which is a message distributed by electronic means from one computer to another via a network (Figure 3, Schroeder(US8204523B1) discloses: “email”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of short messaging service (SMS) which is a generic text messaging service that allows users to send short messages between devices (Figure 3, Schroeder discloses: “SMS”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of fax which is a means to send scanned documents from one location to another via internet or phone (Col. 3, Line 34, Schroeder discloses: “fax”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of cellular which indicates access to a cellular radio system so it can be used over a wide area, without a physical connection to a network (Col. 13, Line 37, Schroeder discloses: “cellular”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of accessing, receiving, providing remote access, generating, and transmitting data, which refers to sending/receiving data (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of gateway which facilitates the requests and delivery of data and services (Col. 9, Line 39, Schroeder discloses: “gateway”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of Data Exchange Layer (DXL) which is a framework that facilitates bi-directional communication and real-time data sharing between different applications, services, and endpoints on a network (Para 0058, Pinto(US20110072185A1) discloses: “FIG. 8 schematically illustrates four conventional communication layers that are used to exchange data and commands between a host device 810 and a removable storage device 820 via a bridge 830, where data and commands are transferred both ways by using small computer system interface (“SCSI”) standards.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of storing (Para 0043, Li(US 20220304142 A1) discloses: “Storage subsystem 1180 includes storage device(s) 1184, which can be or include any conventional medium for storing large amounts of data in a nonvolatile manner, such as one or more magnetic, solid state, or optical based disks, or a combination.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of graphical user interface which is a visual way of interacting with a computer system (Para 0004, Fitzmaurice(US 20110314415 A1) discloses: “Conventional GUIs often provide the end-user with access to a set of tools that can be used to perform various operations within a workspace provided by the software application.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Recitation of communication, which refers to exchange of information (Figure 3, Schroeder(US8204523B1) discloses “email” as a form of communication)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Dependent claims 3, 6, and 7 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 5. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1 hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Subject Matter Free of Prior Art The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art: Claims 1 distinguishes over the prior art for the following reasons. Claim 1 (in part): “…access Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) resources and FHIR Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to provide a standardized interface with the EMR module, EMR systems and EMR APIs to view and update patient information; wherein the service engine module and the EMR module is further configured to support the method steps of: receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein patient information further comprises patient data, appointment data, appointment data, observation data or service request data…” The underlined/italicized limitations indicate the reason for subject matter free of prior art. The closest available prior art of record as follows: Bhansali(US11626192B1) discloses a real-time parser for use with electronic medical records, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention. Streat(US20230187086A1) discloses a healthcare service platform, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention. Mcallister(US11322236B1) discloses a data abstraction system for aggregating and abstracting data records from data providers, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention. Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art as would claims 2-7 via dependency. Response to Arguments Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Page 10) Regarding the assertion that the amended claim provides a technical improvement. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim as written fails to support that the invention is more than a generic software platform utilizing generic computers or computer functions for a particular application. (Page 11) Regarding the assertion that the invention integrates real-world systems, satisfying the practical application test. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The invention integrates real-world systems but the claims lack detail on how this integration occurs technically. (Page 11) Regarding the assertion that text to voice, voice to text capabilities, and routing goes beyond a mere abstract idea and are not insignificant extra-solution activities. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Text to voice, voice to text capabilities, and routing, as indicated in the amended claim are considered to be abstract and insignificant extra-solution activities. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spektor et al (US 20210407657 A1): An interface for consolidating medical care tasks to increase efficiency associated with managing a medical office. Chen et al (US 20210406841 A1): A system and method which provides an infrastructure to support virtual visits. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST. 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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. /S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 16, 2025
Response Filed
May 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Jul 17, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597525
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL INSIGHTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580055
MEDICAL LABORATORY COMPUTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
13%
Grant Probability
31%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 23 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month