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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are currently pending. Claims 8, 11, and 42 are canceled in the Claims filed on October 16, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 is indicated as “Original,” but includes amended language correcting an issue identified by the previous Objection in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 15, 2025. The “Original” label appears to be a typographical error, as Claims 6 should be indicated as “Currently Amended.” In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner will interpret Claim 6 as incorporating the amended language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“a medical control module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, and 34;
“a telemedicine diagnosis service module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 30, and 34;
“a medical examination and equipment management module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, and 34;
“a drug preparation and supply module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 30, and 34;
“an integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, and 34;
“an insurance service module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, and 34;
“a virtual digital medical institution operation module” in Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, and 34;
“a personalized medical management module” in Claims 23-25, 30, and 34; and
“a telemedicine service module” in Claims 23-25, 30, and 34.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in [0069] and [0098] of the as-filed Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, and 34 are drawn to systems for telemedicine, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are drawn to a method for telemedicine, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A smart health management system for a telemedicine service, the smart health management system comprising:
a medical control module generating at least one of a medical diagnosis service request, an autonomous health management information, a medical care and information sharing request and a medical insurance request;
a telemedicine diagnosis service module electrically connected with the medical control module, wherein the telemedicine diagnosis service module performs a telemedicine diagnosis service and generates a medical diagnosis information in response to at least one of the medical diagnosis service request and the autonomous health management information;
a medical examination and equipment management module electrically connected with the medical control module and the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the medical examination and equipment management module supports the telemedicine diagnosis service to generate a pathological inspection and imaging examination information and allows the telemedicine diagnosis service module to generate the medical diagnosis information;
a drug preparation and supply module electrically connected with the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the drug preparation and supply module generates a drug prescription information in response to the medical diagnosis information, and the drug prescription information is provided to the telemedicine diagnosis service module and the medical control module for use;
an integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module electrically connected with the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module, wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module stores at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information and generates a personalized medical analysis information automatically, or at least one of the telemedicine diagnosis service module and the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module provides a medical care and sharing information in response to the medical care and information sharing request from the medical control module, wherein an electronic medical record is automatically generated according to at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information, the drug prescription information, the personalized medical analysis information and the medical care and sharing information;
an insurance service module electrically connected with the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module, wherein the insurance service module generates an insurance claim information automatically in response to the medical insurance request and the electronic medical record and in response to a cash flow information provided by at least one of the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module; and
a virtual digital medical institution operation module electrically connected with the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the virtual digital medical institution operation module supports at least one online medical institution in the telemedicine diagnosis service module to perform the telemedicine diagnosis service;
wherein at least one user has a highest management right over the electronic medical record, and the at least one user completely or partially restricts each of the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the insurance service module to use the electronic medical record in whole or in part, and further
wherein the at least one user is a medical service demander, or
wherein the at least one online medical institution in the telemedicine diagnosis service module includes at least one of an online specialist clinic, an online hospital and an online doctor individual organization, or
wherein the medical examination and equipment management module is provided by at least one medical examination and equipment supplier.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the aforementioned underlined limitations of generating a medical diagnosis service request, performing a telemedicine diagnosis service, generating a medical diagnosis information, generating a pathological inspection and imaging examination information, generating drug prescription information, storing data, generating personalized medical analysis information, providing medical care and sharing information, generating an electronic medical record, generating insurance claim information, and enabling the user to partially or completely restrict the use of the electronic medical record are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions in order to generate patient medical data and control access to the patient medical data to specific entities), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 23 is identical to the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claim 1 and 23 is that Claim 23 recites generating the medical diagnosis information or providing medical care and sharing information, and Claim 23 recites that the storing of information is performed by a personalized medical management module, whereas Claim 1 recites that these operations are performed by the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module. Additionally, the abstract idea for Claim 39 is identical to the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claim 1 and 39 is that Claim 1 recites a system and its associated structure, whereas Claim 39 recites a method.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, 34, 40, 45, and 47-48 include other limitations, for example Claims 2-3, 30, and 40 recite performing operations in response to either user input or input from a physiological feature detection device over a wired or wireless connection, Claim 4 recites tracking a user location for the request, Claim 5 recites various types of physiological feature detection devices, Claims 6 and 45 recite searching for a user, Claim 7 recites communicating between the user and various modules over a network video and communication software, Claim 9 recites various types of medical devices, Claim 12 recites various structural limitations for the modules, Claim 13 recites that the medical control module controls the other modules, Claims 14 and 45 recite automatically generating personalized medical analysis information, Claims 15 and 47 recites a type of medical record, Claims 16, 34, and 48 recite providing information to users based on an authorization, Claim 19 recites various types of functions of the virtual digital medical institution operation module, Claim 20 recites detecting an equipment failure and notifying a user of the equipment failure, Claim 21 recites performing an Internet of Things (IoT) function, Claim 22 recites tracking cash flow information, Claims 24-25 recite the same modules and functions as those recited in independent Claim 1, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, 34, 40, 45, and 47-48 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 23, and 39.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 23, and 39 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the various modules themselves) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the various modules corresponding to computer hardware, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0069] and [0098] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language labeling the modules, such as a “telemedicine diagnosis service module,” which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, 34, 40, 45, and 47-48 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the various types of devices recited in dependent Claims 5, 9, 12, the artificial intelligence technology performing the functions recited in dependent Claims 14 and 45, and the blockchain recited in dependent Claims 15 and 47), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 23, and 39, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 23, and 39 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the various modules themselves), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0069] and [0098] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the various modules) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receiving and processing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information, and retrieving the at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information from storage in order to generate an electronic medical record;
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, 34, 40, 45, and 47-48 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the various types of devices recited in dependent Claims 5, 9, 12, the artificial intelligence technology performing the functions recited in dependent Claims 14 and 45, and the blockchain recited in dependent Claims 15 and 47), receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g. the transmission of data over a wired or wireless connection recited in dependent Claims 3, 12-13, and 25), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 23, and 39, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16, 19, 23-25, 30, 34, 39-40, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher (US 2014/0073880) in view of Weintraub (US 2005/0182721).
Regarding Claim 1, Boucher teaches the following: A smart health management system for a telemedicine service, the smart health management system comprising:
a medical control module generating at least one of a medical diagnosis service request (The system initiates its functions with a request for care, e.g. see Boucher [0097].), an autonomous health management information, a medical care and information sharing request and a medical insurance request;
a telemedicine diagnosis service module electrically connected with the medical control module, wherein the telemedicine diagnosis service module performs a telemedicine diagnosis service (The system connects a healthcare provider with the patient via a phone call or a video link (i.e. a telemedicine diagnosis service), e.g. see Boucher [0098].) and generates a medical diagnosis information in response to at least one of the medical diagnosis service request and the autonomous health management information (The healthcare providers collect and/or review patient health data after connecting with the patient, e.g. see Boucher [0100], and enables the healthcare providers to generate and provide a diagnosis or advice for the patient, e.g. see Boucher [0096] and [0101].);
a medical examination and equipment management module electrically connected with the medical control module and the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the medical examination and equipment management module supports the telemedicine diagnosis service to generate a pathological inspection and imaging examination information and allows the telemedicine diagnosis service module to generate the medical diagnosis information (The patient health data (i.e. the medical diagnosis information) includes blood pressure readings (i.e. a pathological inspection) and images (i.e. imaging examination information), e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0106], and [0149]-[0152].);
a drug preparation and supply module electrically connected with the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the drug preparation and supply module generates a drug prescription information in response to the medical diagnosis information, and the drug prescription information is provided to the telemedicine diagnosis service module and the medical control module for use (The system may generate an e-prescription for a patient based on the received patient health data, e.g. see Boucher [0101] and [0106].);
an integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module electrically connected with the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module, wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module stores at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information (The system stores patient data, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0150], and [0244].) and generates a personalized medical analysis information automatically (The system updates a electronic health record (EHR) for a patient (i.e. personalized medical analysis information), e.g. see Boucher [0106], [0244], and [0252]-[0253].), or at least one of the telemedicine diagnosis service module and the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module provides a medical care and sharing information in response to the medical care and information sharing request from the medical control module (The system enables a patient and/or a healthcare provider to share some or all of the patient health information, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0106], [0252]-[0253], and [0256].), wherein an electronic medical record is automatically generated according to at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information, the drug prescription information, the personalized medical analysis information and the medical care and sharing information (The system updates a electronic health record (EHR) for a patient with new health information, e.g. see Boucher [0106], [0244], and [0252]-[0253].);
a virtual digital medical institution operation module electrically connected with the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the virtual digital medical institution operation module supports at least one online medical institution in the telemedicine diagnosis service module to perform the telemedicine diagnosis service (The healthcare provider provides a diagnosis for the patient, e.g. see Boucher [0096] and [0101], wherein the patient medical data used for the diagnosis by the healthcare provider is stored at a medical care facility (i.e. a medical institution), e.g. see Boucher [0150].);
wherein at least one user has a highest management right over the electronic medical record, and the at least one user completely or partially restricts each of the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the insurance service module to use the electronic medical record in whole or in part (The system enables the patient to elect to share the patient information with the healthcare provider, e.g. see Boucher [0100].), and further
wherein the at least one user is a medical service demander (The user of the system may be a patient (i.e. a medical service demander), e.g. see Boucher [0071].), or
wherein the at least one online medical institution in the telemedicine diagnosis service module includes at least one of an online specialist clinic, an online hospital and an online doctor individual organization (The system puts remote (i.e. online) healthcare providers (i.e. at least “an online doctor individual organization”) in communications with the patient, e.g. see Boucher [0096] and [0101]. Additionally, the patient medical data used for diagnosis by the healthcare provider may be transmitted to a medical facility, e.g. see Boucher [0150], and may also be provided simultaneously to other providers such as specialists, e.g. see Boucher [0127], and further the system may forward a patient prescription to a hospital, and wherein a user of the system may include a hospital, e.g. see Boucher [0008] and [0304].), or
wherein the medical examination and equipment management module is provided by at least one medical examination and equipment supplier (The system components used to obtain the patient medical data include medical diagnostic equipment, e.g. see Boucher [0026], [0149]-[0152], [0173], [0205], and [0284].).
But Boucher does not teach and Weintraub teaches the following:
an insurance service module electrically connected with the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module, wherein the insurance service module generates an insurance claim information automatically in response to the medical insurance request and the electronic medical record and in response to a cash flow information provided by at least one of the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module (The system includes a command processor that examines encounter information, wherein an encounter may be a remote encounter between a patient and a physician, and wherein the encounter information may be stored in patient records (i.e. electronic medical records), e.g. see Weintraub [0021], and based on the encounter information calculates a charge for the provision of healthcare services and produces a claim (i.e. medical insurance request) for payment (i.e. cash flow information) from a third party payer such as an insurance company, e.g. see Weintraub [0022].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Boucher to incorporate the claim generation and submission process as taught by Weintraub in order to enable the accurate determination of remittance data for providers and insurers, e.g. see Weintraub [0003]-[0004], and because Boucher also teaches the submission of insurance forms for services rendered for a patient, e.g. see Boucher [0103] and [0274].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the medical control module generates at least one of the medical diagnosis service request, the medical care and information sharing request and the medical insurance request in response to a demand instruction information of the at least one user (The system initiates its functions with a user request for care, e.g. see Boucher [0097], wherein the user may be a patient and/or provider, e.g. see Boucher [0071].) and/or in response to a personalized basic physiological information description provided by the at least one user that at least includes a personal symptom, a personal medical history and a personal family history, or the medical control module generates the autonomous health management information by inputting a physiological characteristic information of the at least one user that is measured or monitored through a physiological feature detection device (The system provides a user health history (i.e. a personal medical history), and/or physiological parameters such as blood pressure readings (i.e. physiological characteristic information), e.g. see Boucher [0100].).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 2, wherein the medical control module and the at least one user are in wired or wireless communication with each other through a fixed computer or communication device, or the medical control module and the at least one user are in wired or wireless communication with each other through a portable computer or communication device (The system enables communications between the user and provider and various devices via wireless communications, e.g. see Boucher [0023], [0026], and [0111]-[0118].).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 3, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 3, wherein the medical diagnosis service request includes a real-time geographic location that reflects a location of the at least one user (The system automatically collects data upon initiation and/or in real time, wherein the data includes GPS location information of a user, e.g. see Boucher [0028] and [0140].).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 2, wherein the physiological feature detection device at least comprises at least one of a sphygmomanometer, an oximeter, a blood glucose meter, a portable electrocardiograph, a body mass index (BMI) meter and a continuous positive airway pressure breathing (CPAP) device (The system obtains user blood glucose measurements from a blood glucose monitor, oximetry data from an oximeter, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0177], and [0233].).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 2, wherein the at least one user is in communication between the medical control module and the telemedicine diagnosis service module to perform the telemedicine diagnosis service through a network video and communication software (The system enables communication between the patient and healthcare provider via video, e.g. see Boucher [0095] and [0098].).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the medical examination and equipment management module at least comprises at least one of a pathological inspection device and an imaging examination device (The patient health data (i.e. the medical diagnosis information) includes physiological data obtained from various devices, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0106], and [0149]-[0152].), wherein the pathological inspection device at least comprises at least one of an electrocardiograph, a bone density testing device, an automatic blood/urine analyzer and a genetic testing device, or the imaging examination device at least comprises at least one of an X-ray device, a tomography (CT) scanning device, a nuclear magnetic resonance (MRI) device, a fundus camera and an ultrasound device (The physiological data obtained includes data obtained from blood glucose monitors (i.e. a blood/urine analyzer), e.g. see Boucher [0233], xray devices and/or MRIs, e.g. see Boucher [0273] and [0284], and from devices configured to obtain ultrasonic imaging (i.e. an ultrasound device), e.g. see Boucher [0164].).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module is installed in one of a wired data storage device and a wireless data storage device, and each of the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module comprises a memory card with a wireless data transmission function, wherein if the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module is installed in the wireless data storage device, the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information are wirelessly transmitted to the wireless data storage device (The system enables communications between the user and provider and various devices via wireless communications, e.g. see Boucher [0023], [0026], and [0111]-[0118], wherein the various devices may store data, e.g. see Boucher [0037], [0062], [0064], [0100], and [0265].).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 12, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 12, wherein the medical control module comprises a main control unit for controlling each of the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the insurance service module, and the medical control module is installed in one of the wired data storage device and the wireless data storage device (The system enables communications between the user and provider and various devices via wireless communications, e.g. see Boucher [0023], [0026], and [0111]-[0118], wherein the various devices may be remotely controlled by a medical care provider, e.g. see Boucher [0049], [0147], and [0242]-[0246].).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the medical care and sharing information is provided to the at least one user and/or at least one additional user for use, wherein the at least one additional user is selected and designated by the at least one user, or wherein the at least one user authorizes the at least one additional user to use the electronic medical record in whole or in part (The system enables a user to authorize the sharing of the user health data with another user, e.g. see Boucher [0100], wherein the another user may be a healthcare provider that uses the health data to diagnose the user, e.g. see Boucher [0100]-[0101].).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the virtual digital medical institution operation module at least comprises at least one of an appointment consultation and examination management function, a customer relationship management (CRM) function and a marketing function so as to support the at least one online medical institution to perform the telemedicine diagnosis service (The system enables a user to request care, and in response connects the user with a remote healthcare provider (i.e. an appointment consultation and/or customer relationship management) such that the healthcare provider can diagnose the patient, e.g. see Boucher [0097]-[0101].).
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations of Claim 23 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 does not recite the telemedicine service module optionally providing medical care and sharing information in response to the medical care and information sharing request, and further Claim 23 recites storing data via the personalized medical management module and Claim 1 recites storing the data via the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module. Specifically pertaining to Claim 23, Examiner notes that the providing of the medical care and sharing information is optional, and further notes that label of a “personalized medical management module” versus a “integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module” are not functional distinctions but instead represent non-functional labels – that is, the labels for the modules in Claims 1 and 23 do not change the actual functions performed by the modules, and hence the modules are treated as equivalents. Hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 23, and Boucher further teaches the following: The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 23, wherein the personalized medical management module at least comprises:
a medical control module generating at least one of the medical diagnosis service request, the autonomous health management information, the medical care and information sharing request and the medical insurance request (The system initiates its functions with a request for care (i.e. a medical diagnosis service request and/or a medical care and information sharing request), e.g. see Boucher [0097].); and
an integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module electrically connected with the medical control module, the telemedicine service module and the medical examination and equipment management module, wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module stores at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information (The system stores patient data, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0150], and [0244].) and generates the personalized medical analysis information automatically (The system updates a electronic health record (EHR) for a patient (i.e. personalized medical analysis information), e.g. see Boucher [0106], [0244], and [0252]-[0253].), or at least one of the telemedicine service module and the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module provides a medical care and sharing information in response to the medical care and information sharing request from the medical control module (The system enables a patient and/or a healthcare provider to share some or all of the patient health information, e.g. see Boucher [0100], [0106], [0252]-[0253], and [0256].), wherein the electronic medical record is automatically generated according to at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information, the drug prescription information, the personalized medical analysis information and the medical care and sharing information (The system updates a electronic health record (EHR) for a patient with new health information, e.g. see Boucher [0106], [0244], and [0252]-[0253].).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 24, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 24, wherein the medical control module generates at least one of the medical diagnosis service request, the medical care and information sharing request and the medical insurance request in response to a demand instruction information of the at least one user (The system initiates its functions with a request for care (i.e. a demand instruction), e.g. see Boucher [0097].) and/or in response to a personalized basic physiological information description provided by the at least one user that at least includes a personal symptom, a personal medical history and a personal family history, or the medical control module generates the autonomous health management information by inputting a physiological characteristic information of the at least one user that is measured or monitored through a physiological feature detection device (The system provides a user health history (i.e. a personal medical history), and/or physiological parameters such as blood pressure readings (i.e. physiological characteristic information), e.g. see Boucher [0100].), or
wherein the medical control module and the at least one user are in wired or wireless communication with each other through a fixed computer or communication device, or the medical control module and the at least one user are in wired or wireless communication with each other through a portable computer or communication device (The system enables communications between the user and provider and various devices via wireless communications, e.g. see Boucher [0023], [0026], and [0111]-[0118].), or
wherein the at least one user is in communication between the medical control module and the telemedicine service module to perform the telemedicine diagnosis service through a network video and communication software (The system enables communication between the patient and healthcare provider via video, e.g. see Boucher [0095] and [0098].), or
wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module is installed in one of a wired data storage device and a wireless data storage device, and each of the medical control module, the telemedicine service module, the medical examination and equipment management module and the drug preparation and supply module comprises a memory card with a wireless data transmission function, wherein if the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module is installed in the wireless data storage device, the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information are wirelessly transmitted to the wireless data storage device (The system enables communications between the user and provider and various devices via wireless communications, e.g. see Boucher [0023], [0026], and [0111]-[0118], wherein the various devices may store data, e.g. see Boucher [0037], [0062], [0064], [0100], and [0265].), or
wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module uses an artificial intelligence technology to analyze, integrate or identify at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information so as to generate the personalized medical analysis information automatically.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 23, and Boucher further teaches the following: The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 23, wherein the telemedicine service module at least comprises:
the telemedicine diagnosis service module electrically connected with the personalized medical management module, wherein the telemedicine diagnosis service module performs the telemedicine diagnosis service and generates the medical diagnosis information in response to at least one of the medical diagnosis service request and the autonomous health management information (The system initiates its functions with a request for care (i.e. the medical diagnosis service request), e.g. see Boucher [0097].); and
the drug preparation and supply module electrically connected with the telemedicine diagnosis service module, wherein the drug preparation and supply module generates the drug prescription information in response to the medical diagnosis information, and the drug prescription information is provided to the telemedicine diagnosis service module and the personalized medical management module for use (The system may generate an e-prescription for a patient based on the received patient health data, e.g. see Boucher [0101] and [0106].).
Regarding Claim 34, the limitations of Claim 34 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 16, with the sole difference being that Claim 34 depends from Claim 23 whereas Claim 16 depends from Claim 1. As shown above, Claims 1 and 23 are both taught by the combination of Boucher and Weintraub, and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 16 are similarly applied to Claim 34.
Regarding Claim 39, the limitations of Claim 39 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a system whereas Claim 39 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 39, Examiner notes that Boucher teaches both system and method embodiments, e.g. see Boucher [0002], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claim 39.
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 39, and Boucher further teaches the following:
The smart health management method for the telemedicine service according to claim 39, wherein at least one of the medical diagnosis service request, the medical care and information sharing request and the medical insurance request is generated in response to a demand instruction information of the at least one user (The system initiates its functions with a user request for care, e.g. see Boucher [0097], wherein the user may be a patient and/or provider, e.g. see Boucher [0071].) and/or in response to a personalized basic physiological information description provided by the at least one user that at least includes a personal symptom, a personal medical history and a personal family history, or the autonomous health management information is generated by measuring or monitoring a physiological characteristic information of the at least one user (The system provides a user health history (i.e. a personal medical history), and/or physiological parameters such as blood pressure readings (i.e. physiological characteristic information), e.g. see Boucher [0100].), or
wherein the at least one user performs the telemedicine diagnosis service through a network video and communication software (The system enables communication between the patient and healthcare provider via video, e.g. see Boucher [0095] and [0098].), or
wherein the medical diagnosis service request includes a real-time geographic location that reflects a location of the at least one user (The system automatically collects data upon initiation and/or in real time, wherein the data includes GPS location information of a user, e.g. see Boucher [0028] and [0140].).
Regarding Claim 48, the limitations of Claim 48 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 16, with the sole difference being that Claim 16 recites a system whereas Claim 48 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 48, Examiner notes that Boucher teaches both system and method embodiments, e.g. see Boucher [0002], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 16 are similarly applied to Claim 48.
Claims 6 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Movassaghi (US 2021/0020318).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Movassaghi teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 2, wherein the medical control module further comprises a contact and trace unit, wherein the contact and trace unit proactively searches for the at least one user that is located in a specific area and proactively communicates with the at least one use (The system enables remote communication between patients and healthcare providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0027], wherein the system determines patient and provider locations in order to match patients and providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0040]-[0041].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate the patient location determination as taught by Movassaghi in order to provide efficient consultations for patients and providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0027].
Regarding Claim 45, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 39, but does not teach and Movassaghi teaches the following:
The smart health management method for the telemedicine service according to claim 39, wherein the smart health management method further comprises a step of proactively searching for the at least one user that is located in a specific area and proactively communicating with the at least one use (The system enables remote communication between patients and healthcare providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0027], wherein the system determines patient and provider locations in order to match patients and providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0040]-[0041].), or wherein the smart health management system further comprises a step of using an artificial intelligence technology to analyze, integrate or identify at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information so as to generate the personalized medical analysis information automatically.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate the patient location determination as taught by Movassaghi in order to provide efficient consultations for patients and providers, e.g. see Movassaghi [0027].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Mai (US 2019/0147173).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and further teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the integrated electronic medical record and artificial intelligence analysis data module uses a technology to analyze, integrate or identify at least one of the autonomous health management information, the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information so as to generate the personalized medical analysis information automatically (The system updates a electronic health record (EHR) for a patient (i.e. personalized medical analysis information), e.g. see Boucher [0106], [0244], and [0252]-[0253].).
But the combination of Boucher and Weintraub does not teach and Mai teaches the following:
wherein the technology used to analyze, integrate or identify operations is an artificial intelligence technology (The system includes an “always listening” mode that utilizes artificial intelligence to receive/record and process data, for example symptom data, wherein the data may then be used to automatically update a user’s medical record, e.g. see Mai [0070] and [0081].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate the artificial intelligence technology as taught by Mai in order to provide a convenient and secure technology for obtaining patient data, e.g. see Mai [0006] and [0083].
Claims 15 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Bulleit (US 2018/0060496).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Bulleit teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the electronic medical record is implemented by using a block chain technology (The system includes a server that intakes, stores, and/or provides electronic health records (EHRs) to users, e.g. see Bulleit [0050], wherein the system further includes a blockchain that handles access to data in the EHRs, e.g. see Bulleit [0138], [0147], and [0152].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate the blockchain technology as taught by Bulleit in order to improve security of storing and providing access to protected health information resources contained within EHRs, e.g. see Bulleit [0042].
Regarding Claim 47, the limitations of Claim 47 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 15, with the sole difference being that Claim 47 recites a method whereas Claim 15 recites a system. Specifically pertaining to Claim 47, Examiner notes that Boucher teaches both system and method embodiments, e.g. see Boucher [0002], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 15 are similarly applied to Claim 47.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Sampath (US 2010/0234718).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Sampath teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the insurance service module has an equipment failure detection function of automatically notifying the at least one user of an equipment failure information (The system is configured to detect a failure in a component of the system, for example a server or a medical device, wherein in response to the detection of the failure, the system may send out an alert to a user, e.g. see Sampath [0074].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate notifying users of the equipment failure as taught by Sampath in order to enable the users to compensate for the failure, e.g. see Sampath [0074].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Ibarrola (US 2020/0398062).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Ibarrola teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the medical control module, the telemedicine diagnosis service module, the medical examination and equipment management module, the drug preparation and supply module and the insurance service module has an Internet of Things (IoT) function (The system includes a plurality of devices that obtain Internet-of-Things-based sensor data gathered from patients and surroundings, wherein the data is subsequently processed by an optimized machine learning framework and/or artificial intelligence techniques, e.g. see Ibarrola [0075].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate the IoT function of gathering patient data and the artificial intelligence technique as taught by Ibarrola in order to enable the system to process a large amount of data, e.g. see Ibarrola [0075].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Weintraub in view of Wesermann (US 2016/0350481).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Boucher and Weintraub teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Ibarrola teaches the following:
The smart health management system for the telemedicine service according to claim 1, wherein the medical diagnosis information, the pathological inspection and imaging examination information and the drug prescription information contain a medical diagnosis cash flow information, a pathological inspection and imaging examination cash flow information and a drug prescription cash flow information, respectively (The system tracks various categories of costs (i.e. cash flow information) including facility utilization costs, imaging costs, and pharmacy costs, e.g. see Wesemann [0134], wherein the patient may be diagnosed at a facility visit, e.g. see Wesemann [0141], the pharmacy cost may be a cost of medications, e.g. see Wesemann [0165].).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Boucher and Weintraub to incorporate tracking the various costs associated with the patient care as taught by Wesemann in order to understand and improve care value, e.g. see Wesemann [0003] and [0028].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 6 have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The previous objection to Claim 6 has been withdrawn. However, as shown above, Claim 6 is nonetheless objected to because it is indicated as “Original” despite the text of the claim being amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the interpretations of Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the present invention “[proposes] a new module architecture and information flow for health management,” and “can be implemented through concrete structure to perform the claimed function,” e.g. see pgs. 17-19 of Remarks.
Examiner notes that the interpretation of Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not a rejection, but instead is merely indicative of the requirement that Examiner interpret the identified terms as requiring interpretation in light of the disclosures of the Specification. That is, the identified nonce terms performing the claimed functions are interpreted as corresponding to hardware elements disclosed in the Specification (e.g. see [0069] and [0098] of the as-filed Specification) and known equivalents.
For the reasons disclosed above, Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, 19-22, 24-25, 30, and 34 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 8, 11, 30, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 8, 11, 30, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it claims various functions that depart from conventional remote medical systems, specifically by enabling a medical services requester to control access to an electronic medical record, and further because the claimed invention employs blockchain-based immutable records and public/private key verification to ensure data security, e.g. see pgs. 20-23 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that merely reciting features that differ from prior art references is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, because the “novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter,” and specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05I(I).
Furthermore, as shown above, the features Applicant cites as differing from conventional systems are taught by the cited references. For example, Boucher teaches “the user may elect to directly share this information with and/or authorize release of this stored date [sic] to the provider(s),” and “it may be desirable that the user is able to share up-to-date (current) diagnostic information with the provider,” e.g. see Boucher [0100]. Additionally, Boucher teaches that the system comprises “a secure link between the user(s) and the provider(s),” e.g. see Boucher [0098]. Furthermore, Boucher teaches that “there may also be crowd sourcing for two or more opinions from providers. Such embodiments may be particularly applicable to lower income countries or those having lower provider cost,” e.g. see Boucher [0282]. Hence, similar to the “departures from conventional remote medical systems” that Applicant alleges, the invention of Boucher teaches providing a secure system that enables a user to specify which other individuals, for example healthcare providers, may be authorized to access the user’s data, and further enabling remote conferencing/consultation between users, wherein the users may reside in different countries.
Additionally, as shown above, the blockchain feature recited in dependent Claims 15 and 47 is not interpreted as part of the abstract idea, but is instead interpreted as an additional element. Moreover, the language of Claims 15 and 47 merely recite that “the electronic medical record is implemented by using a block chain technology,” and does not provide any further details explaining how the blockchain technology is specifically applied and/or how the claimed blockchain technology differ from any existing, off-the-shelf, and/or conventional blockchain. Hence as presently claimed, the blockchain limitations recited by Claims 15 and 47 represent mere instructions to apply an exception, rather than a practical application of the abstract idea and/or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner further notes that even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention “can all be realized through specific software and/or hardware technologies,” the Claims being narrowly claimed is not dispositive in determining the eligibility of the Claims. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. That is, a claim reciting a narrow abstract idea nonetheless recites an abstract idea. Additionally, “mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"),” e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(d). Furthermore regarding Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05 similarly states “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept.” The instant application merely uses these “software and/or hardware” components to implement the abstract idea on a computer and link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants first allege that Boucher and Weintraub are deficient because it does not teach that the patient has “absolute control” over his or her medical information, specifically because the remote server may be managed by a healthcare provider, e.g. see pgs. 23-30 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner firstly notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the patient having “absolute” control of their medical record) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the present Claims recite that “the at least one user has a highest management right over the electronic medical record,” but, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, this at most merely requires that the user has the highest ability to manage the electronic medical record. Similarly, the invention taught by Boucher enables a patient to grant permission for access to his or her medical data, e.g. see Boucher [0256], [0300], and [0303]. Boucher does not disclose, for example, that a healthcare provider or other user may override the patient permissions and/or that the patient’s permission is outranked by another user. Hence Boucher is not deficient to teach the features it is cited for, and does not teach away from the claimed features of the present invention.
Additionally, regarding Weintraub, as shown above, Weintraub is cited to the teach the functions of the insurance service module, specifically the calculation of a charge for healthcare services and the generation of a claim for payment from a third-party payer such as an insurance company, e.g. see Weintraub [0021]-[0022]. Weintraub is not cited to teach the patient authorization feature.
Hence neither Boucher nor Weintraub is deficient to teach the features they are cited for.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 19-25, 30, 34, 39-40, 45, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681