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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Because the claimed invention includes a non-original claim limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation:
“converting, by the service engine module, the non-standardized updated information received from the GUI into the standardized format supported by the HL7 standards protocol by parsing the non-standardized information, mapping data fields to corresponding HL7-compliant data elements, and generating standardized records for storage.”
Applicant’s associated remarks filed 28 April 2026 assert that the amendments are supported in the original specification but fail to identify any support for the amendments.
What appears to be the most relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure is at [0088]:
[0088] According to the disclosure, the service engine platform (including the service engine module) is configured to integrate with existing EMR systems and create data exchange protocol compliant with LIS1-A and LIS2-A. These are Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) standards for electronic data exchange.
This disclosure vaguely references data exchange and specific formats (LIS1-A and LIS2-A). But this disclosure does not discuss any data conversion, does not indicate that it applies to non-standardized information received from a GUI, does not discuss HL7, does not indicate any parsing of non-standardized information, and does not describe any mapping of data fields. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this disclosure to support the identified limitation.
The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation. Examiner notes that: the specification does not use the words “converting” or “conversion”, the specification does not use the words “standardized” or “non-standardized”. the specification does not reference “HL7” or “health level seven”, and the specification does not discuss either “parsing” or “mapping.”
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original claim limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation:
“…routing outbound notifications through the SMS server, the email server, and the telephony module based on a patient-specified preferred contact method stored in the non-transitory memory device…”
Applicant’s associated remarks filed 28 April 2026 assert that the amendments are supported in the original specification but fail to identify any support for the amendments.
What appears to be the most relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure is at [0035]:
According to FIG. 5C, the patient enters the cell phone number to receive text notification on status at step 540. If the cell phone number is entered at step 540, the process moves to step 542 where a notification message is sent. The notification message may include "Feel free to wait in the mall or your car. We will keep you posted on your status" at step 542.
This disclosure vaguely references the input of preferred contact method let alone the routing process of the notification based on the preferred contact method. The specification does not indicate or describe the routing or saving/inputting contact preference method. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this disclosure to support the identified limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation. Examiner notes that: the specification does not use the word “routing” or a “stored” patient-specified preferred contact method.
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original claim limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 services for patients comprising:
a computer processor operable to execute a set of instructions storable in a non-transient memory device;
a web portal configured to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) for data entry;
a service engine module executed by the computer processor and configured to integrate a plurality of service subsystems comprising:
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; wherein the service engine module is configured to communicate across multiple communication channels including short message service (SMS), email, phone, text-to-voice, and voice-to-text by routing outbound notifications through the SMS server, the email server, and the telephony module based on a patient-specified preferred contact method stored in the non-transitory memory device; wherein the service engine module comprises a billing rules engine that applies a stored set of jurisdictional billing rules to determine, for each healthcare service request, whether the service should be billed to public health coverage or private insurance, the determination being based on evaluating a combination of patient location, physician location, patient employment status, and provincial or state service rules retrieved from the non-transitory memory device;
wherein the service engine module is configured to access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) that transmits eligibility query messages to external insurance provider systems and receives for real-time eligibility confirmation, thereby enabling secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers using application programming interfaces compliant with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standards;
wherein the service engine module is configured to interface with the one or more EMR systems through Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to retrieve and update patient information stored in the EMR systems;
wherein the service engine module and the EMR module are further configured to perform the steps of:
receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein the 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 received from the GUI into the standardized format supported by the HL7 standards protocol by parsing the non-standardized information, mapping data fields to corresponding HL7-compliant data elements, and generating standardized records for storage, thereby enabling connectivity and interoperability between the service engine module and the one or more EMR systems,
storing the standardized updated patient information in the collection of medical records in the standardized format at the EMR module or the EMR system;
and automatically generating, by a message generation component of the service engine module, a notification message containing the updated information whenever updated information has been stored,
and transmitting the notification message to the patient and other authorized users over the computer network in real time through the communication channel corresponding to each user's stored contact preference, so that the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information stored;
and wherein the integration of the modules service subsystems, the billing rules engine, and the communication channels by the service engine module creates a unified data picture by combining healthcare service provider data, EMR data and insurance coverage data in a single platform, thereby providing automated coordination that reduces manual intervention in service delivery and enables 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 to execute a set of instructions storable in a non- transient memory device”, “module”, “server”, “system”, “computer processor”, “service subsystems”, “service engine”, 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 to execute a set of instructions storable in a non- transient memory device”, “a web portal”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “module”, “computer processor”, “service subsystems”, “service engine”, “server”, “systems”, “SMS”, “to communicate across multiple communication channels including short message service (SMS), email, phone, text-to-voice, and voice-to-text by routing outbound notifications through the SMS server, the email server, and the telephony module based on a patient-specified preferred contact method stored in the non-transitory memory device”, “configured to access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) that transmits eligibility query messages to external insurance provider systems and receives for real-time eligibility confirmation, thereby enabling secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers using application programming interfaces compliant with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standards”, “to interface with the one or more EMR systems through Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to retrieve and update patient information stored in the EMR systems”, “receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein the 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”, and “transmitting the notification message to the patient and other authorized users over the computer network in real time through the communication channel corresponding to each user's stored contact preference, so that the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information stored”.
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 to execute a set of instructions storable in a non- transient memory device”, “a web portal”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “module”, “computer processor”, “service subsystems”, “service engine”, “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:
“to communicate across multiple communication channels including short message service (SMS), email, phone, text-to-voice, and voice-to-text by routing outbound notifications through the SMS server, the email server, and the telephony module based on a patient-specified preferred contact method stored in the non-transitory memory device”
“configured to access a Data Exchange Layer (DXL) that transmits eligibility query messages to external insurance provider systems and receives for real-time eligibility confirmation, thereby enabling secure bi-directional data exchange with insurance providers using application programming interfaces compliant with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standards”
“to interface with the one or more EMR systems through Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) Application Programming Interfaces (API) and HL7 standards protocol to retrieve and update patient information stored in the EMR systems”
“receiving patient information from the GUI of the web portal, wherein the 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 notification message to the patient and other authorized users over the computer network in real time through the communication channel corresponding to each user's stored contact preference, so that the patient and other users have immediate access to up-to-date patient information stored”
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
Claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
(Pages 9-10) Regarding the assertion that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims as interpreted under BRI recites several abstract concepts that can be considered a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity. The implementation of the abstract idea relies on generic processing or computing elements to carry out the abstract recitations. Please refer to the analysis above.
(Pages 10-12) Regarding the assertion that the claim is integrated into a practical application
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements identified above (unbolded) 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)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea. Please refer to the analysis above.
(Page 13) Regarding the assertion that the claim recites significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 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. Please refer to analysis above.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-08-14
Prosecution Insights