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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 01 December 2025, the following occurred:
Claims 1 and 8 were amended.
Claims 2 and 9 were canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending.
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 and 3-8 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method for providing information about referrals to patients, healthcare providers, and their staff members, and therefore meets step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of determining a status of a referral event, wherein the referral event includes a referral and an appointment with a healthcare provider; responsive to determining the status of the referral event, determining communication preferences of the recipient and determining whether a report associated with the referral event is available by polling […a location…]; generating a communication by populating dynamic variables of a message template with corresponding data associated with the referral event and by adding the report to the message template; sending the generated communication including information associated with the referral event and the report based on the communication preferences; receiving an indication that the communication has been received successfully or an indication that the communication has resulted in a communication error; logging the communication error responsive to the indication of the communication error; logging that the communication is sent successfully responsive to the indication that the communication has been received successfully; identifying a referring organization associated with the referral event; retrieving data associated with users associated with the referring organization to identify a user associated with the referral event; and sending a notification communication […] to the identified user responsive to determining that the identified user has a system account associated with the referring organization, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
The claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic health records (EHR) system and a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) web socket that implement the identified abstract idea. The EHR system and HTTP web socket merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an EHR system and a HTTP web socket were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the "significantly more" analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-8 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claims 3 and 4 merely describe sending the notification. Claims 3 and 4 further recite the additional element of a browser page, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and the significantly more analysis.
Claims 5 and 6 merely describe a communication preference. Claim 7 merely describes the referral event. Claim 8 merely describes sending the communication. Claims 5, 6, and 8 further recite the additional elements of a short message system (SMS), email, and/or fax, which are considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and the significantly more analysis.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks et al. (US 2003/0069754) in view of Huang et al. (US 2011/0276349), referred to hereinafter as Weeks and Huang, respectively, Morefield (U.S. 2016/0246926), Larusson et al. (U.S. 2023/0317225), and Easterhaus et al. (U.S. 2018/0137590), referred to hereinafter as Larusson and Easterhaus, respectively.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Weeks teaches the claimed method for sending a notification to a recipient, the method comprising:
…and determining whether a report associated with the referral event is available by polling…; [Para. 0010 teaches accessing a server computer at regular intervals to determine whether a new referral is available.]
generating a communication by populating dynamic variables of a message template with corresponding data associated with the referral event…; [Para. 0033 teaches generating a referral form (or a recipient form). Para. 0044 teaches populating the form with corresponding data required by the recipient.]
logging the communication error responsive to the indication of the communication error; [The “communication error” is optional and the option was not taken. As such, this limitation is not required to be met and the Examiner declines to address it.]
logging that the communication is sent successfully responsive to the indication that the communication has been received successfully. [Claim 1 teaches transmitting a confirmation message responsive to a successful transmission of the completed referral form.]
identifying a referring organization associated with the referral event; [Para. 0028 teaches confirming the identity of the originator (referring organization). Para. 0030 teaches registering healthcare originators.]
retrieving data associated with users associated with the referring organization to identify a user associated with the referral event; and [Para. 0028 teaches accessing a database of originators (organizations).]
[…] determining that the identified user has a system account associated with the referring organization. [Para. 0026 teaches a secure connection, meaning there is an account associated with the user.]
Weeks may not explicitly teach
responsive to determining the status of the referral event, determining communication preferences of the recipient […];
sending the generated communication including information associated with the referral event and the report based on the communication preferences;
However, Huang teaches the following:
responsive to determining the status of the referral event, determining communication preferences of the recipient […]; [Para. 0013, 0045 teaches a notification router that identifies patients having attributes that satisfy the notification criteria.]
sending the generated communication including information associated with the referral event and the report based on the communication preference; [Para. 0013 teaches sending notifications (e.g., email, phone messages, etc.; the communication of Weeks) upon satisfaction of the notification criteria.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks to define communication preferences as taught by Huang, with the motivation of providing support for managing dynamic healthcare data obtained from patients which improves communication (see Huang at Para. 0005).
Weeks in view of Huang may not explicitly teach
determining a status of a referral event, wherein the referral event includes a referral and an appointment with a healthcare provider;
…an electronic health records (EHR) system;
receiving an indication that the communication has been received successfully or an indication that the communication has resulted in a communication error;
However, Morefield teaches the following:
determining a status of a referral event, wherein a referral event includes a referral and an appointment with a healthcare provider; [Para. 0040 teaches determining a status of an appointment by asking the patient whether an appointment has been scheduled. Para. 0048 teaches determining whether the referral was viewed by the status being set as ‘unread’ or ‘read’.]
…an electronic health records (EHR) system; [Para. 0032 teaches EHR databases are implemented in computer devices (interpreted as the server computer of Weeks).]
receiving an indication that the communication has been received successfully or an indication that the communication has resulted in a communication error; [Para. 0048 teaches the status being set to ‘read’, indicating the communication was received.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang to determine a status of a referral event and receive an indication that the communication was received as taught by Morefield, with the motivation of delivering more efficient and effective health care (see Morefield at Para. 0002).
Weeks in view of Huang and Morefield may not explicitly teach
sending a notification communication via hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) web sockets to the identified user responsive to...
However, Larusson teaches the following:
sending a notification communication via hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) web sockets to the identified user responsive to... [Para. 0055 teaches sending a notification. Para. 0020 teaches using web sockets to send data.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang and Morefield to send a notification via web sockets as taught by Larusson, with the motivation of providing timely notifications (see Larusson at Para. 0007).
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, and Larusson may not explicitly teach
…and by adding the report to the message template;
However, Easterhaus teaches the following:
…and by adding the report to the message template; [Para. 0061 teaches attaching pertinent clinical documentation (radiographic images, etc.).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, and Larusson to add a report as taught by Easterhaus, with the motivation of improving the quality of care provided to the patient (see Easterhaus at Para. 0060).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, Easterhaus, and Spector et al. (U.S. 2004/0024616), referred to hereinafter as Spector.
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Larusson further teaches
wherein the sending the notification via the HTTP web sockets… [Para. 0055 teaches sending a notification. Para. 0020 teaches using web sockets to send data.]
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
…includes refreshing a browser page to display a referral event status to a user.
However, Spector teaches the following:
…includes refreshing a browser page to display a referral event status to a user. [Para. 0063 teaches a “Check Referrals” tool. Para. 0066 teaches refreshing a web-browser page. Para. 0065 teaches a “Status” column.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus to refresh a browser page to check referral status as taught by Spector, with the motivation of improving patient safety (see Spector at Para. 0091).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Larusson further teaches
wherein the sending the notification via the HTTP web sockets… [Para. 0055 teaches sending a notification. Para. 0020 teaches using web sockets to send data.]
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
…includes refreshing a browser page to display a number of referrals or number of appointments to a user.
However, Spector teaches the following:
…includes refreshing a browser page to display a number of referrals or number of appointments to a user. [Para. 0063 teaches a “Check Referrals” tool. Para. 0066 teaches refreshing a web-browser page. Para. 0061 teaches displaying a number of documents.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Spector with the teachings of Weeks, Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus is the same as that presented with respect to claim 3, and is therefore reiterated here.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, Easterhaus, and Nagaraja et al. (U.S. 2020/0244605), referred to hereinafter as Nagaraja.
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
wherein a communication preference includes a short message system (SMS) message, and retrieving a caller identification number responsive to determining that the communication preference includes a short message system (SMS) communication preference.
However, Nagaraja teaches the following:
wherein a communication preference includes a short message system (SMS) message, and retrieving a caller identification number responsive to determining that the communication preference includes a short message system (SMS) communication preference. [Para. 0086 teaches modifying modes of communication based on user preferences. Para. 0149 teaches SMS messaging. Para. 0065 teaches including a mobile phone number from the user’s profile.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus to retrieve a phone number responsive to determining that a communication preference includes SMS as taught by Nagaraja, with the motivation of increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the interaction between the user and the professional service providers (see Nagaraja at Para. 0109).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
wherein a communication preference includes an email message, and the method further includes retrieving email settings responsive to determining that the communication preference includes an email preference.
However, Nagaraja teaches the following:
wherein a communication preference includes an email message, and the method further includes retrieving email settings responsive to determining that the communication preference includes an email preference. [Para. 0086 teaches modifying modes of communication based on user preferences. Para. 0063 teaches retrieving an email address.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Nagaraja with the teachings of Weeks, Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus is the same as that presented with respect to claim 5, and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via short message system (SMS) if the communication preference includes an SMS communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via email if the communication preference includes an email communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via facsimile if the communication preference includes a facsimile communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via electronically via an electronic health records (EHR) system if the communication preference includes an EHR communication preference; and sending the communication including information associated with the referral via electronically via a system account if the communication preference includes an internal account communication preference.
However, Nagaraja teaches the following:
sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via short message system (SMS) if the communication preference includes an SMS communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via email if the communication preference includes an email communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via facsimile if the communication preference includes a facsimile communication preference; sending the communication including information associated with the referral event via electronically via an electronic health records (EHR) system if the communication preference includes an EHR communication preference; and sending the communication including information associated with the referral via electronically via a system account if the communication preference includes an internal account communication preference. [Para. 0086 teaches modifying modes of communication based on user preferences. Para. 0064 teaches transmitting responses via the same communication mode. For example, responses can be sent via SMS.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Nagaraja with the teachings of Weeks, Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus is the same as that presented with respect to claim 5, and is therefore reiterated here.
The Examiner notes that the “sending” recitations are contingent limitations of a method claim and only one is required to occur for the claim to be met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, PTAB Appeal 2013-007847 (precedential).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, Easterhaus, and Baniameri et al. (U.S. 2014/0278480), referred to hereinafter as Baniameri.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus may not explicitly teach
wherein the referral event includes patient and provider information, patient information including a name of a patient, contact information of a patient, an appointment schedule of the patient, and a communication preference of the patient.
However, Baniameri teaches the following:
wherein the referral event includes patient and provider information, patient information including a name of a patient, contact information of a patient, an appointment schedule of the patient, and a communication preference of the patient. [Para. 0024 teaches referrals. Para. 0035 teaches including patient information such as name and contact information. Para. 0030 teaches healthcare provider databases. Para. 0047 teaches an appointment schedule for the patient. Para. 0045 teaches communication preference of the patient.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the method of Weeks in view of Huang, Morefield, Larusson, and Easterhaus to include patient and provider information, an appointment schedule, and a communication preference as taught by Baniameri, with the motivation of improving care (see Baniameri at Para. 0041).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefinite rejection of Claims 1-9, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
… the rejected claims involve a process and/or system comprising a computer arranged to perform a sequence of operations designed to improve the underlying functionality of computing systems, in particular online platforms such as healthcare platforms, healthcare databases (e.g., disparate and/or separate databases), and other platforms where excess resources are often spent on information retrieval and communication functions.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, the as-filed disclosure does not describe any problems associated with “excess resources.” This is mere supposition on the part of Applicant’s representative that is unsupported by the disclosure. Second, it is unclear if Applicant’s claimed invention actually solves these alleged problems, because the claims are not directed to reducing resources. Applicant’s claims may actually make these worse. Finally, even assuming these are actual problems, Applicant’s claimed invention is using a computer to solve these problems, which is using a computer for what it was designed to do.
…as the claimed features overcome drawbacks associated with costly processing of referral events with associated likelihood of human errors and include analysis of data from a plurality of data sources and for a large number of users, the features of claim 1 clearly cannot be performed in the mind, as stated by the Office.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, the as-filed disclosure does not describe any problems associated with “costly processing of referral events.” This is mere supposition on the part of Applicant’s representative that is unsupported by the disclosure. Second, it is unclear if Applicant’s claimed invention actually solves these alleged problems, because the claims are not directed to costs. Applicant’s claims may actually make these worse. Finally, even assuming these are actual problems, Applicant’s claimed invention is using a computer to solve these problems, which is using a computer for what it was designed to do.
The Examiner submits that the abstract idea was not characterized as being directed to a mental process. The claimed invention was characterized as falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity (see Final Office Action dated 07/30/2025 at Pg. 5). As such, this argument cannot be persuasive.
…the claims are not merely directed to an abstract idea. Like the claims in Enfish, which improved previous software solutions for software-based databases by providing multiple benefits, such as faster search or data and more effective storage of data, the claims at hand improve the computer capabilities by
improving efficiency and reducing operations when providing meaningful and relevant search results to users of an online healthcare platform. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features are not merely invoking a
computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea, but instead target specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities over previous solutions.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer. Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate slower and less efficiently through the implementation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer, a practical application is not present. The claimed features are merely invoking a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Further, Applicant’s claimed invention is not even remotely like that in Enfish because Applicant’s claims are not directed to a new form of database structure.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Kaukab et al. (U.S. 2015/0379212) which discloses a system and methods for enhanced management of patient care and communication.
Nasrallah et al. (U.S. 11694774) which discloses a platform for perpetual clinical collaboration and innovation with patient communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert W Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683