DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 09/11/25.
Claims 1, 5, 8 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 10, 12-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-9, 11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Priority/Continuity
Applicant’s claim to the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/187,998, filed 05/13/21, and PCT/CA2022/050764, filed 05/13/22, is acknowledged. A certified copy of the PCT/CA2022/050764 application was received on 11/10/23. Accordingly, a priority date of 05/13/21 has been given to this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4a, 4b contain text and/or graphics that are blurry/illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9, 11 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-9, 11 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving a request from an individual for connecting with a mental health support professional, the request including language preference and cultural background of the individual;
comparing language preference with characteristics of a set of mental health support professionals;
selecting a subset of the set of mental health support professionals that match the language preference of the individual;
comparing cultural background of the individual with cultural background of the subset of the set of mental health support professionals; and
generating and displaying a list of recommended mental health support professionals to the individual based on the comparisons.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Matching a patient to a mental health therapist based on the patient’s language and cultural preferences is a personal behavior that may be performed by a healthcare provider or personnel working in the healthcare industry.
Claim 8 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving a request from individual for connecting with a mental health support professional, the request including a list of criteria for a desired mental health support professional, the criteria including language preference and cultural background of the individual;
determining a list of recommended mental health support professionals for the individual based on the request; and
displaying the list of recommended mental health support professionals.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Using a patient’s language and cultural preferences to identify a list of recommended mental health professionals for the patient is a personal behavior that may be performed by a healthcare provider or personnel working in the healthcare industry.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements, and therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to amount to more than the abstract idea.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claim 11 recites limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims. Claim 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 further recite limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 6 recites displaying a set of videos in different languages including at least the language preference, the set of videos associated with the list of recommended mental health support professionals, which comprises an additional element. As explained above, Claim 1, from which Claim 6 depends, is directed to an abstract idea in the form of matching a patient to a mental health therapist based on the patient’s language and cultural preferences. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the function of displaying a set of videos in different languages including at least the language preference is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of matching a patient to a mental health therapist based on the patient’s language and cultural preferences and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the above limitations also constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the form of storing/retrieving information in memory and/or transmitting data over a network. These types of activities have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The above limitations are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11 do not recite any additional elements by which to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claims 1 or 8. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated above, Claims 1-9, 11 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perlroth et. al. (US Publication 20170193171A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Perlroth discloses: receiving a request from an individual for connecting with a mental health support professional ([0006] teaches on a provider matching service which enables a patient to input his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment and to request medical providers that best match his/her needs; [0007] teaches on the provider matching service described with reference to behavioral health providers such as psychiatrists, with respect to medical conditions and treatments in behavioral health space; this is interpreted as reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of “mental health support professional), the request including language preference and cultural background of the individual ([0029] teaches on the patient indicating treatment preferences which include language preferences and cultural considerations); comparing language preference with characteristics of a set of mental health support professionals ([0030] teaches on using all of the information obtained from patient (shown partially in Figs. 6A-D) to rank providers for the patient across multiple dimensions; the patient’s input preferences (language, cultural considerations per [0029]) are used to filter out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, and the remaining providers are ranked by the provider matching service; Examiner interprets filtering out providers who don’t match patient’s language preference and ranking providers by best match to indicate that patient language preference has been compared with characteristics of mental support provider in order to filter out providers who don’t match or rank the providers that do match); selecting a subset of the set of mental health support professionals that match the language preference of the individual ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, which includes language per [0029]; the remaining providers, e.g. those not filtered out due to not meeting preferences, are ranked – e.g. a subset of providers matching language preference is selected); comparing cultural background of the individual with cultural background of the subset of the set of mental health support professionals ([0030] teaches on using all of the information obtained from patient (partially shown in Figs. 6A-D) to rank providers for the patient in multiple dimensions; the patient’s input preferences (language, cultural considerations per [0029]) are used to filter out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, and the remaining providers are ranked by the provider matching service; Examiner interprets filtering out providers who don’t match patient’s cultural preference and ranking providers by best match to indicate that patient cultural preference has been compared with characteristics of mental support provider in order to filter out or rank the providers); and generating and displaying a list of recommended mental health support professionals to the individual based on the comparisons ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; [0046] teaches on providing a list of matched providers based on the patient’s medical conditions and preferences).
Regarding Claim 2, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Perlroth further discloses further comprising receiving a selected mental health support professional from the individual based on the list of recommended mental health support professionals to the individual based on the comparisons ([0047] teaches on providing the recommendations to the patient and the patient selecting a provider to provide treatment).
Regarding Claim 3, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Perlroth further discloses further comprising displaying a list of available times associated with the selected mental health support professional to the individual for selection of an appointment time ([0046] teaches on generating recommendations associated with the best matched providers for a patient based on the patient preferences; the list of matched providers includes information associated with each matched provider including the provider’s availability; [0047] teaches on the patient scheduling an appointment with the selected provider using the provider matching service).
Regarding Claim 5, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Perlroth further discloses further comprising comparing mental health needs of the individual against the skill set and qualifications of the set of mental health support professionals ([0033] teaches on “disqualifying events”, e.g., ways by which a particular provider is filtered out as being “not qualified to treat a patient”, e.g., license has been revoked or provider is not accepting new patients; [0051] teaches on filtering out providers not qualified to treat a particular patient based on constraints generated from a patient’s treatment preferences and based on disqualifying events; a disqualified healthcare provider is not included in the matching process for the patient; a filter module uses the patient’s treatment preferences and disqualifying events to filter out providers not qualified to treat the provider – Examiner interprets filtering out providers to indicate a comparison was performed in order for the system to know which providers to filter out and which to keep; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; the remaining providers may be ranked according to best matches for the patient; [0066] teaches on the weighting being used such that providers better suited to a particular patient’s needs would be ranked higher).
Regarding Claim 8, Perlroth discloses:
receiving a request from an individual for connecting with a mental health support professional ([0006] teaches on a provider matching service which enables a patient to input his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment and to request medical providers that best match his/her needs; [0007] teaches on the provider matching service described with reference to behavioral health providers such as psychiatrists, with respect to medical conditions and treatments in behavioral health space; this is interpreted as reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of “mental health support professional), the request including a list of criteria for a desired mental health support professional, the criteria including language preference and cultural background of the individual ([0029] teaches on the patient indicating treatment preferences which include language preferences and cultural considerations, among other preference indicators, for a healthcare provider);
determining a list of recommended mental health support professionals for the individual based on the request ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; [0046] teaches on providing a list of matched providers based on the patient’s medical conditions and preferences); and
displaying the list of recommended mental health support professionals ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; [0046] teaches on providing a list of matched providers based on the patient’s medical conditions and preferences which is displayed to the patient via client device).
Regarding Claim 9, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Perlroth further discloses wherein determining a list of recommended mental health support professionals comprises: generating a weighting for the list of criteria ([0005] teaches on ranking providers among multiple dimensions for a particular patient; the matching services access a patient’s needs and applies different weights to different corresponding dimensions in ranking the providers);
comparing the list of criteria with characteristics of a set of mental health support professionals to determine which of the set of mental health support professionals meet the list of criteria ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; the remaining providers may be ranked according to best matches for the patient);
applying the weighting to the set of mental health support professionals that meet the list of criteria ([0065] teaches on accessing a patient's needs across different medical conditions and applies different weights to different corresponding dimensions in ranking the providers; per Perlroth citations in preceding limitation to paras. [0030], [0045], it is understood that professionals not meeting the criteria are disqualified/filtered out and not included in the results, as such, only professionals meeting the criteria have weights applied); and
determining the list of recommended mental health support professionals based on which of the set of mental health support professional that meet the list of criteria receive a highest score based on the weighting ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; [0046] teaches on providing a list of matched providers based on the patient’s medical conditions and preferences; [0066] teaches on the weighting being used such that providers better suited to a particular patient’s needs would be ranked higher).
Regarding Claim 11, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Perlroth further discloses wherein the list of criteria further comprises type of treatment required ([0005] teaches on treatment options including medication only, psychotherapy only, or both; [0029] teaches on a patient using a GUI on a client device to select his/her preference for treatment, e.g., medication only, psychotherapy only, or both; see Fig. 6D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlroth et. al. (US Publication 20170193171A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Joao (US Publication 20150278453A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 3 but does not disclose the following. Joao, which is directed to an apparatus for providing healthcare services remotely, teaches further comprising transmitting video call information to the individual based on a selected appointment time ([0059] teaches on the central processing computer generating a reminder message for a patient pertaining to an appointment for a video call appointment that has been made by the patient; the message is transmitted to the patient’s communication device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perlroth with these teachings of Joao, to transmit video call information to the patient based on a selected appointment time, with the motivation of providing the patient with information containing the appointment time, provider’s name they will meet with, and call-in/access information (conference call number, IP address, etc.) and instructions for joining the videocall (Joao [0060]).
Regarding Claim 7, Perlroth/Joao teach the limitations of Claim 4. Perlroth does not disclose the following, but Joao, which is directed to an apparatus for providing healthcare services remotely, teaches further comprising facilitating payment between the individual and the selected mental health support professional ([0166] teaches on a database containing a healthcare spending account of the patient which may be, e.g., a deposit, credit, debit, electronic cash account; the healthcare spending account can be used by the patient to pay for any healthcare service, treatment, or procedure; per [0104] the provider of Joao may include psychiatrists and psychologists, which are interpreted as reading on “mental health support professionals”; [0146] teaches on services including appointments with one or more healthcare providers including therapists and counselors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Perlroth/Joao with these teachings of Joao, to facilitate payment between the individual and healthcare provider, with the motivation of maintaining records of each and every instance of a payment made by or on behalf of a patient (Joao [0173]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlroth et. al. (US Publication 20170193171) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Buck et. al. (US Publication 20120010904A1), and further in view of Chen et. al. (US Publication 20160105707A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Perlroth discloses the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following. Buck, which is directed to a method of physician-patient matching, teaches: further comprising displaying a set of videos in different languages including at least the language preference, the set of videos associated with the list of recommended mental health support professionals ([0065]-[0072] teach on a physician-patient matching system which provides a list of recommended providers to a patient based on a variety of patient characteristics with provider characteristics; [0057] teaches on a directory of physician profiles by which a patient can view physician profiles for the patient to select a physician with who to make an appointment; [0058] teaches on the physician director allowing each physician to record videos to provide an introduction of themselves to the patient; the provider can record videos of answers to common medical questions they are asked (“set of videos associated” with the medical professionals); videos are linked to the physician profiles and available to all users in a video library of medical questions; [0027] teaches on “psychiatrists” being among the types of medical providers who may provide services to patients, which is interpreted as a “mental health support professional”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perlroth with these teachings of Buck, to incorporate videos of a medical provider into a list of recommended medical professionals for a patient, with the motivation of using the videos of the providers to give the patient an idea of their medical/communication skills and how they practice medicine for the patient to consider while the patient is searching for a medical provider (Buck [0058]).
Perlroth/Buck do not teach the following, but Chen, which is directed to systems and methods for delivering video content to users, teaches:
videos in different languages including at least the language preference ([0008] teaches on receiving user account information and storing a language preference associated with the user account information; [0030] teaches on a user downloading/streaming video on a personal computing device; [0032] teaches on presenting advertisements, and movie content in the user’s preferred language; [0045] teaches on content including “alternative language tracks”; [0057] teaches on a user logging in, and automatically being offered an “alternate language track in the user’s preferred language” any time the user logs in for a movie (“video”); Examiner interprets a “preferred language” and “alternate language tracks” to teach on video content being available in different languages; [0069] further teaches on the concept of “different languages”, e.g. any number of other languages can be played be user devices to watch a movie).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Perlroth/Buck with these teachings of Chen, so that the videos of the medical providers of Buck are available in different languages including the patient’s preferred language, with the motivation of enabling greater individualization of video content to allow individuals to watch videos in their native languages (Chen [0029].
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
Please note: When referencing page numbers of Applicant’s response, references are to page numbers as printed.
Claim Objections
The objections to Claims 1, 5 and 8 for minor informalities are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to these claims.
Drawing Objections
The objections to drawings 1c, 1d, 5, 7 for containing text and/or graphics that are blurry/illegible are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s submission of revised drawings.
The objections to drawings 4a and 4b for containing text and/or graphics that are blurry/illegible are maintained, as the replacement drawings submitted on 09/11/25 are still blurry/illegible.
112(f) interpretations and corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) Rejections
The 112(f) interpretations and corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections of Claims 12-17 are moot as these claims have been canceled by Applicant.
112(b) Rejections
The 112(b) rejection of Claim 10 for indefiniteness is moot as Claim 10 has been canceled by Applicant.
112(d) Rejections
The 112(d) rejection of Claim 15 is moot as Claim 15 has been canceled by Applicant.
101 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts at page 5, “Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed at more than an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent personal behaviors that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to match a patient with a mental healthcare provider based on the patient’s language/cultural preferences. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under behaviors performed by a person to match a mental health professional with a patient based on the patient’s cultural preferences, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding remarks “it is respectfully submitted that a healthcare provider or personnel working in the healthcare industry would not have access to the same number of mental health support professionals that would be part of the claimed system”, Examiner respectfully submits that this is irrelevant to subject matter eligibility; furthermore, Examiner notes that nothing in the claim language requires a large volume of healthcare support professionals. Applicant further remarks “by providing access for a patient to many more mental health support professionals improves the possibility that the patient can receive suitable support to address their mental health concerns”. Examiner respectfully submits that any purported improvements are improvements to the abstract itself, e.g., an improved way to match a patient with a mental healthcare professional so the patient’s concerns are addressed. Regarding technological improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, please see 2106.04(d)(II) which states, “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h)”. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(a) which states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” As detailed in main 101 analysis section above, independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements by which to provide a technological improvement and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The rejections of Claims 1-9, 11 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The rejections of Claims 10, 12-17 under 35 USC 101 are moot as these claims have been canceled by Applicant.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully submits that the portions of Perlroth cited above in 102 Rejections section teach on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims:
receiving a request from an individual for connecting with a mental health support professional ([0006] teaches on a provider matching service which enables a patient to input his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment and to request medical providers that best match his/her needs; [0007] teaches on the provider matching service described with reference to behavioral health providers such as psychiatrists, with respect to medical conditions and treatments in behavioral health space; this is interpreted as reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of “mental health support professional), the request including language preference and cultural background of the individual ([0029] teaches on the patient indicating treatment preferences which include language preferences and cultural considerations); comparing language preference with characteristics of a set of mental health support professionals ([0030] teaches on using all of the information obtained from patient (shown partially in Figs. 6A-D) to rank providers for the patient across multiple dimensions; the patient’s input preferences (language, cultural considerations per [0029]) are used to filter out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, and the remaining providers are ranked by the provider matching service; Examiner interprets filtering out providers who don’t match patient’s language preference and ranking providers by best match to indicate that patient language preference has been compared with characteristics of mental support provider in order to filter out providers who don’t match or rank the providers that do match); selecting a subset of the set of mental health support professionals that match the language preference of the individual ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, which includes language per [0029]; the remaining providers, e.g. those not filtered out due to not meeting preferences, are ranked – e.g. a subset of providers matching language preference is selected); comparing cultural background of the individual with cultural background of the subset of the set of mental health support professionals ([0030] teaches on using all of the information obtained from patient (partially shown in Figs. 6A-D) to rank providers for the patient in multiple dimensions; the patient’s input preferences (language, cultural considerations per [0029]) are used to filter out providers that do not match the patient’s preferences, and the remaining providers are ranked by the provider matching service; Examiner interprets filtering out providers who don’t match patient’s cultural preference and ranking providers by best match to indicate that patient cultural preference has been compared with characteristics of mental support provider in order to filter out or rank the providers); and generating and displaying a list of recommended mental health support professionals to the individual based on the comparisons ([0030] teaches on filtering out providers who don’t match the patient’s preferences and ranking the remaining providers that meet the patient’s preferences; [0045] teaches on selecting best matched providers for a patient based on the analysis of the patient data; the matching module filters out disqualified providers and analyzes the remaining providers based on patient’s preferences; [0046] teaches on providing a list of matched providers based on the patient’s medical conditions and preferences).
While the system of Perlroth may provide additional features, e.g., ranking providers that match a patient’s preferences such as language, none of these preclude the cited features from reading on the instant claim language. In Perlroth, the system “filters out” providers that don’t match the criteria and only selects the best matched providers to the providers based on the patient’s preferences (e.g., language), which are presented to the patient, e.g., recommending and displaying recommended mental health support professionals based on comparison of the patient’s preferences for language and cultural considerations. The fact that the providers in Perlroth who meet the patient’s required criteria (language, cultural considerations) are presented in a ranked list, rather than generally “displaying a list” of professionals to the patient, does not disqualify Perlroth from teaching on the instant claims.
The rejections of Claims 1- 3, 5, 8-9, 11 under 35 USC 102 are maintained.
The rejections of Claims 12-16 under 35 USC 102 are moot as Applicant has canceled these claims.
103 Rejections
Regarding Dependent Claims 4, 6, 7, the Applicant has not offered any arguments with respect to these claims other than to reiterate the argument(s) present for the claims from which they depend. As such, the rejection of these claims is also maintained.
The rejection of Claims 10, 17 under 35 USC 103 are moot as Applicant has canceled these claims.
Conclusion
In the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20170177805 A1, teaching on a healthcare workflow that recommends a healthcare provider for a particular patient based on the provider’s language skills and/or familiarity with particular religious views, cultural, racial or ethnic populations
US Publication 20190096534 A1, teaching on an apparatus and method of providing healthcare services virtually/remotely, in which patients can specify a preferred language of their provider
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682