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 present application filed on 01/27/2026.
Claims 1 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 16 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and 16 are directed to a method and a system, respectively, and therefore fall into one of the four statutory categories. Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-20 are further drawn to a method and a system, respectively, and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong One:
The substantially similar independent method and system claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A virtual medical service method comprising: receiving, via a server of a computer system, a request from a patient for a medical test;
transmitting by the computer system, the request from the server to a local computer of a medical provider;
receiving into the server an order from the medical provider for the medical test;
providing an alert to a computing device of the patient informing the patient of the order;
and recording a record of the order in a computer system.
The limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of certain methods 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, receiving a request from a patient, sharing the request with a provider, receiving an order from a provider, informing the patient, and recording a record of the order), 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.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15, and 17-18 recite other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites the medical provider is chosen by the patient, Claim 3 recites recording visit records, Claim 5 recites sending instructions to the patient to go to a test site to complete the medical test, Claim 6 recites sending an order to a test site, Claim 7 recites facilitating the patient and the test site in scheduling the test, Claim 8 recites instructions include giving a sample, Claim 9 recites no communication occurs between the patient and the medical provider, Claim 10 recites a billing code is recorded into the record, Claim 11 recites authorizing a laboratory to ship, Claim 12 recites accepting input of a test result from a laboratory and providing the patient/provider with access to it, Claim 13 recites periodically transmitting batches of records, Claim 15 recites initiating shipment to the patient, Claim 17 recites recording a billing code into record, Claim 18 recites recording a plurality of records, Claim 20 recites sending instructions to the patient to go to a test site to complete the medical test. These limitations 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. Additionally, any limitations not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are nonetheless directed toward fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1 and Claim 16 and are further grouped into certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 16 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the server, computer system, and computing device of Claim 1 and the processor and memory subsystem and computing device of Claim 16) amount to no more than limitations which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that a telecommunications network 217 passes the patient request from the personal device 205 to the computer system 209. The computer system 209 contains a processor linked to a memory subsystem containing program instructions executable by the processor to process 105 the request and share 109 the request with the clinic via the clinic computer 223. The computer system 209 preferably includes one or any combination of server computers or cloud computing resources (see applicant’s specification, pages 8-9, lines 30-31, 1-4). Preferably, a telecommunications network 217 passes the patient request from the personal device 205 to the computer system 209 (p. 8, lines 29-31). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 3-4, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-20 recite additional elements. Claim 3 recites the additional element of a billing system computer and recites recording a plurality of visit records and transferring the records to a billing system computer. Claim 4 recites a smartphone app and the previously recited computer system and states the request is received when the patient uses a smartphone app that transmits the request to the computer system. Claim 10 recites the additional element of the computer system and an electronic medical record system and states the billing code is recorded and the computer system uploads the record to an EMR system. Claim 11 recites the computer system and a medical test kit and states the medical test comprises a test kit and the method comprises authorizing, by the computer system, a laboratory to ship the home test kit to the patient. Claim 13 recites an insurance system and the previously cited computer system and states the computer system periodically transmits batches of records to an insurance system. Claim 14 recites the computer system and an electronic medical record system and states the computer system writes the record to an electronic medical records system as a record of a billable visit. Claim 15 recites a medical test kit and recites initiating shipment of a medical test kit directly to the patient. Claim 17 recites the previously stated system and specifies the system records a billing code into the record. Claim 18 recites a billing system computer and the system and specifies the system records a plurality of records and transfers the records to a billing system computer. Claim 19 recites the previously recited computing device and system and new element of a smartphone and smartphone app, and Claim 19 specifies the computing device of the patient is a smartphone and the request is received when a person uses a smartphone app which transmits the request to the system. Claim 20 recites the previously recited system and specifies the system sends instructions to the patient to go to a test site. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Hence, Claims 1-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, when considered individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the server, computer system, and computing device of Claim 1 and the processor and memory subsystem and computing device of Claim 16 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. For these reasons, independent Claims 1 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5-9, and 12 solely narrow the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Claim 2 narrows the abstract idea by specifying how the medical provider is selected (by the user). Claim 5 narrows the abstract idea by stating sending instructions to the patient to go to a test site for testing. Claim 6 narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by specifying sending the order to the testing site. Claim 7 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the method comprises facilitating the patient and the test site in scheduling the test. Claim 8 narrows the abstract idea by specifying what kind of sample the patient will give. Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea by specifying no communication occurs between the patient and the medical provider. Claim 12 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the path of the test result.
Dependent Claims 17 and 20 recite previously cited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 17 recites the previously cited system and specifies the system records a billing code into the record. Claim 20 recites the previously cited system and specifies the system sends instructions to the patient to go to the test site.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-19 introduce new additional elements outside of the additional elements recited in the independent claims. Claims 3 and 18 recite a new additional element of a billing system computer and specifies recording a plurality of visit records for several days and transferring the visit records to a billing system computer. Claim 4 recites a new additional element of a smartphone app and specifies the request is received when the patient uses a smartphone app that transmits the request to the computer system. Claim 10 recites a new additional element of an electronic medical record system and specifies the computer system uploads the record to an electronic medical record system. Claim 13 recites the new additional element of an insurance system and specifies the computer system transmits records to an insurance system. Claim 19 recites the previously recited computing device as well as new additional elements of a smartphone and smartphone app, and Claim 19 states the computing device is a smartphone and the request is received when the person uses a smartphone app which transmits the request to the system. Claim 14 recites a new additional element of an electronic medical record system and specifies the computer system writes the record to an electronic medical records system as record of a billable visit. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claim 11 recites a new additional element of a medical test kit and specifies the medical test comprises a home test kit and the computer system authorizes the laboratory to ship the test kit to the patient. Claim 15 recites a new additional element of a medical test kit and specifies the method initiates shipment of a medical test kit to the patient. The additional element of the home/medical test kit amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, the general linking of the abstract idea to a technical environment (i.e. online environment) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in step 2B. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more"). Hence, Claims 1-20 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 computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Thus, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-2, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad et al. (US 20170011179 A1) in view of Eberting et al. (US 20190214116 A1) and Calabrese et al. (US 20050075543 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Arshad discloses the following:
A virtual medical service method comprising: receiving, via a server of a computer system, a request from a patient…; (Arshad discloses a telemedicine system and method including a care coordination software platform that allows for patient monitoring at home and connects patients to their medical teams via telemedicine [0011]. A method of …sending a request to the server computer for an encounter between the patient and the selected healthcare provider at a desired date and time [0018]. A computing device displays at least an option for a patient to request an immediate encounter with a healthcare provider [0016].)
transmitting by the computer system, the request from the server to a local computer of a medical provider; (Arshad discloses providing on a server computer, a plurality of software queues, each queue associated with one of a plurality of healthcare providers, receiving a request from a patient on a computing device to schedule an encounter with a health care provider [0017]. After the CTM [care team member] invite message 930 is generated … on the patient's computing device, the patient completes it and transmits it back to the system. The system reads the returned CTM invite message and generates one or more corresponding invite messages which are transmitted to the selected CTMs included. An example GUI rendered on an HCP [health care provider] computing device in accordance with the present invention is shown in FIG. 34 [0327-328, Fig. 34].)
receiving into the server an order from the medical provider for the medical test; (Arshad discloses the provider can enter a patient's medical chart (step 178) and add, delete and edit the patient's record. The provider can also generate orders or tasks [0185].)
and recording a record of the order in the computer system (Arshad discloses any assessments and plans are recorded by the provider into the patient record (step 202) [0191]. Window 933 comprises work request information such as a request for offsite work at the site of the patient and performed by a selected HCW. Examples include obtaining vitals, …obtaining audio information (e.g., lungs, heart, etc.) using a stethoscope, blood test, etc. [0330]. The work request information is interpreted as an order for a test (i.e. blood tests).)
Arshad does not disclose informing the patient of the order which is met by Eberting:
providing an alert to a computing device of the patient informing the patient of the order; (Eberting teaches the discussion module 900 may provide a consultation or appointment status and notes….a change in the status of a consultation may trigger a notification to relevant parties. For instance, each update may be sent to a patient to inform the patient as to what is being done for them (e.g., “Your order has been sent to the lab” or “Prescription sent to the pharmacy”) [0346]. The customer may allow the representative to transfer to the customer's personal computing device. The customer computing device may be a portable electronic device such as a cell phone or tablet [0291].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate notifying the user of the order as taught by Eberting. This modification would create a system and methods which allows for easy tracking of next-steps (see Eberting, ¶ 0346).
Arshad and Eberting do not teach informing the patient requesting a medical test which is met by Calabrese:
receiving a request from a patient for a medical test (Calabrese teaches the tests requested by a patient are diverse and require different testing laboratories and/or different methods of obtaining the sample (e.g., a home use kit for capillary blood and a clinic/physician for arterial blood) [0056].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the request from the patient being for a medical test as taught by Calabrese. This modification would create a system and methods capable of allowing for early detection of a disease if a patient has a concern (see Calabrese, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim contains substantially similar limitations to those disclosed in Claim 1 above; thus Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as listed above. Arshad further discloses the following:
system comprising: at least one processor coupled to a memory subsystem containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the system to obtain a digital request from a patient…; (Arshad discloses computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts [0083]. For some processors, the external cache may comprise an L1 or first level cache. The bridge or chipset 20 couples to main memory 24 via memory bus 20 [0088].)
Regarding Claim 2, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad further discloses:
wherein the medical provider is chosen by the patient, with knowledge of the identity of the medical provider, sent the request to the medical provider. (Arshad discloses generating a graphical user interface that when rendered on a computing device displays an option for a patient to select from among a list of healthcare providers that meet one or more criteria, enabling a patient to select one of the healthcare providers on the list, sending a request to the server for an encounter between the patient and the selected healthcare provider at a desired date and time [0017]. After the CTM [care team member] invite message 930 is generated … on the patient’s computing device, the patient completes it and transmits it back to the system. The system reads the returned CTM invite message and generates one or more corresponding invite messages which are transmitted to the selected CTMs included. An example GUI rendered on an HCP computing device in accordance with the present invention is shown in FIG. 34 [0327-328, Fig. 34].)
Regarding Claim 13, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Eberting:
wherein the computer system periodically transmits batches of records to an insurance system (Eberting teaches the telemedicine system may provide the laboratory an interface whereby they can send invoices directly to the requesting healthcare provider 202 using the handle of the healthcare provider 202, an associated insurance, and/or other healthcare provider 202. The invoice may be sent to an address (electronic or physical) associated with the handle [0105]. Using any of the models described above, the healthcare provider may charge or bill an insurance company for the insurer's usage and/or the patient's usage of the practitioner-specific digital health platform. The ability to bill or the automatic billing of an insurance provider may be turned on or off on a visit-by-visit basis [0028].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the continuous transfer of records to an insurance system as taught by Eberting. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing accurate and continuous billing as necessary while minimizing billing errors (see Eberting, ¶ 0002).
Regarding Claim 14, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad further discloses:
…writes the record to an electronic medical records system… (Arshad discloses any assessments and plans are recorded…into the patient record (step 202). Any diagnosis is also recorded into the patient record (step 208). Once the diagnosis is records, the provider electronically signs the patient's chart (step 210) [0191].)
Arshad and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Eberting:
wherein the computer system writes the record … as a record of a billable visit. (Eberting teaches the telemedicine system may display all of the staff members of a facility and allow the patient or prospective patient to …send a secure message, schedule an e-visit, schedule an in-person visit, manage bills, view lab results, etc. [0265]. The Examiner interprets the patient being able to pay bills on the system as the system recording billable visits.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the system saving the record of the visit as billable as taught by Eberting. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing accurate and continuous billing as necessary while minimizing billing errors (see Eberting, ¶ 0002).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Romeo et al. (US 20200104961 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Eberting:
further comprising recording a plurality of visit records …. (Eberting teaches the discussion module 900 may include a patient medical record share portal that shows medical records of the patient with dates, provider, specialties, practices, reasons for visits, and the current number of times or people with whom the medical record has been shared. Selecting the share count may allow the patient to manage the sharing privileges relating to that particular medical record [0305].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the recording of visit records as taught by Eberting. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing accurate and continuous billing as necessary while minimizing billing errors (see Eberting, ¶ 0002).
Arshad, Calabrese, and Eberting do not teach the following limitations met by Romeo:
…each day for at least several days and periodically transferring the…records to a billing system computer (Romeo teaches a billing system can be provided to manage a patient's billing information. The system can allow entry, tracking, maintenance and updating of patient billing information such as, for example, patient insurance information, billing address, payment information, payment history, Accounts Receivable, and the like. Such a billing system can be configured to store its information and billing information data store 90 [0095]. Operation 195 any updated or additional information obtained from the patient during the check - in process can be stored locally by the client computing device, and uploaded to central data repository 71 to update the main record database. This upload to central data repository 71 can be done in real time or near real - time, or can be done in a batch mode at periodic (e.g. daily) intervals [0069].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate records being transferred to a billing system and collecting data at least daily as taught by Romeo. This modification would create a system and methods which provides accurate billing and recordkeeping to reduce downstream payment issues (see Romeo, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 3 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Mirza et al. (US 8423387 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
wherein the request is received… transmits the request to the computer system (Arshad discloses the method comprising providing on a server computer, a plurality of software queues, each queue associated with one of a plurality of healthcare providers, receiving a request from a patient on a computing device…sending a request to the server for an encounter between the patient and the selected healthcare provide [0017].)
Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Mirza:
…when the patient uses a smartphone app that transmits the request to the…system (Mirza teaches a system and method of providing delivery of medical care through instant patient access to a physician via an application (app) on a smartphone connecting over a network. A patient signs into the system through a smartphone app and selects a category for an emerging medical issue and further submits a detailed description of the presenting issue. A physician instantly receives a notice through the app on a physician smartphone that the patient is waiting on a consultation (abstract).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the appointment taking place over a smartphone app as taught by Mirza. This modification would create a system and methods which can facilitate efficiently delivered healthcare (see Mirza, col. 1, lines 35-37).
Regarding Claim 19, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 16 above. Arshad further discloses:
wherein [the] computing device of the patient is a smartphone (Arshad discloses examples of computing devices include but are not limited to smartphones (running Android, iOS, etc.),…[0076].)
Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Mirza:
and wherein the request is received when a patient uses a smartphone app on the smartphone, and whereby the smartphone app transmits the request to the system. (Mirza teaches a system and method of providing delivery of medical care through instant patient access to a physician via an application (app) on a smartphone connecting over a network. A patient signs into the system through a smartphone app and selects a category for an emerging medical issue and further submits a detailed description of the presenting issue. A physician instantly receives a notice through the app on a physician smartphone that the patient is waiting on a consultation (abstract).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the appointment taking place over a smartphone app as taught by Mirza. This modification would create a system and methods which can facilitate efficiently delivered healthcare (see Mirza, col. 1, lines 35-37).
Claims 5, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Dawson et al. (US 20170316381 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Dawson:
Wherein the method further comprises sending instructions to the patient to go to a test site to complete the medical test. (Dawson teaches sending instructions to the test subject device 130 specifying the location of one or more predetermined site location(s) (for example, a collection site location, a clinic location, a medical testing site location, a lab location, an employer location, and/or any other suitable location) Further, the MRO computer 132 (or one or more of the various site computers) can send instructions to the test subject device 130 … to send an update that the device 130 is within a given threshold distance to the predetermined site location [0052]. Fig. 2 displays an example of the test subject’s device which displays to the test subject the location of the test site. The test subject is interpreted as a patient. Each location can correspond to a testing site that the test subject 135 can visit for the administration of the requested test(s) [0056].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate sending the patient instructions to go to the test site as taught by Dawson. This modification would create a system and methods which monitors and assists in the testing process to minimize costs, errors, and delays (see Dawson, para. 0003).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 5 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 8, Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese and Dawson teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5 above. Arshad, further discloses:
giving a sample that includes at least one of blood, breath, and urine. (Arshad discloses the system may render information acquired by the sensors such as medical image information (e.g., from an MRI, X-ray, CT scan, and/or an ultrasound), blood test results, drug test results,…[0117]. The drug tests are interpreted as a urine test.)
Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach providing instructions to the patient to go to the test site which is met by Dawson:
wherein the instructions include… (Dawson teaches sending instructions to the test subject device 130 specifying the location of one or more predetermined site location(s) (for example, a collection site location, a clinic location, a medical testing site location, a lab location, an employer location, and/or any other suitable location) Further, the MRO computer 132 (or one or more of the various site computers) can send instructions to the test subject device 130 … to send an update that the device 130 is within a given threshold distance to the predetermined site location [0052].)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Dawson, further in view of Mirza et al. (US 8423387 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese, and Dawson teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5 above. Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese and Dawson do not teach the following limitations met by Mirza:
further comprising sending the order to the test site. (Mirza teaches in block 154, if required, then the system selectively transmits prescriptions and orders for follow-up care to third party providers, such as, for example, but not limited to, pharmacies, therapists, testing laboratories, radiological testing facilities, imaging facilities and specialists (col. 12, lines 33-37).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the notification of the order to the testing site as taught by Mirza. This modification would create a system and methods which reduces the cost and improves the efficiency of healthcare delivery and quality (see Mirza, col. 2, lines 17-20).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese, Mirza, and Dawson, further in view of Paolucci et al. (US 20220293260 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Arshad, Eberting, Mirza, and Dawson teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese, Mirza, and Dawson do not teach the following limitations met by Paolucci:
further comprising facilitating the patient and the test site in scheduling the test. (Paolucci teaches the integration tracking engine 201 enables capacity scheduling to regulate a flow/movement of patients to each location. In this regard, the integration tracking engine 201 tracks how many users are at and/or scheduled for each testing site and utilizing the ML/AI module to determine how to route the patient A [0102].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the assisting of the patient in scheduling a testing appointment as taught by Paolucci. This modification would create a system and methods which ensures clinical testing is efficient and safe and prevents the spread of diseases by using appointment blocks (see Paolucci, ¶ 0002).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Kamangar et al. (US 20220076812 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitation met by Kamangar:
wherein no communication occurs between the patient and the medical provider. (Kamangar teaches FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary process for a non-critical remote service session request 403B. In step 900, SPCI server 50 receives a request 403B from client device 20A. The request 403B may include a status of service wanted, summary, and other data related to the request (such as, in a dental application, a photograph or video showing the portion of a patient's mouth in question). SPCI server 50 receiving the request 403B may perform a number of functions in an embodiment [0041, Fig. 9]. The Examiner interprets the patient interacting with the server for assistance instead of a provider.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the patient not communicating with the provider as taught by Kamangar. This modification would create a system for providing a service model which provides patients with the services they need in a faster manner (see Kamangar, ¶ 0004).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Burns et al. (US 20200226321 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Burns:
wherein a billing code is recorded into the record, and optionally wherein the computer system uploads the record to an electronic medical record system. (Burns teaches for each billing code in the listing of possible billing codes, computing, by the computer processor, a classifier score for the feature vector using machine learning; and assigning a billing code to the input record from the listing of possible billing codes based on the classifier scores [0008]. The input record with an assigned billing code is passed directly to a billing system 17 for processing [0023].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the billing code being saved to medical records as taught by Burns. This modification would create a system and methods which provides accurate billing and reduces downstream payment issues (see Burns,¶ 0003-4).
Regarding Claim 17, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 16 above. Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Burns:
wherein the system records a billing code into the record. (Burns teaches for each billing code in the listing of possible billing codes, computing, by the computer processor, a classifier score for the feature vector using machine learning; and assigning a billing code to the input record from the listing of possible billing codes based on the classifier scores [0008]. The input record with an assigned billing code is passed directly to a billing system 17 for processing [0023].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate the billing code being saved to the records as taught by Burns. This modification would create a system and methods which provides accurate billing and reduces downstream payment issues (see Burns, ¶ 0003-4).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese in view of Bellante et al. (US 20100063837 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad further discloses the following:
Wherein the medical test comprises a home test kit, and the method further comprises authorizing, by the computer system, (Arshad discloses the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in any tangible medium of expression having computer usable program code embodied in the medium (para. 0079). During the encounter, the provider can direct the worker to take any lab or other tests that may help with a more complete encounter [0215].)
…based on the order from the medical provider (Arshad discloses the provider can enter a patient's medical chart (step 178) and add, delete and edit the patient's record. The provider can also generate orders or tasks [0185].)
Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Bellante:
a laboratory to ship the home test kit to the patient …(Bellante teaches fulfilling the test kit order with test media coming from laboratories or manufacturers with known acceptable quality for the particular test, coordinating test kit shipment to the user, [0006].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate sending a medical test kit to the user as taught by Bellante. This modification would create a system and methods which provides effective at-home tests to users to detect maladies early and efficiently (see Bellante, ¶ 0002).
Regarding Claim 15, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Bellante:
further comprising initiating shipment of a medical test kit directly to the patient. (Bellante teaches fulfilling the test kit order with test media coming from laboratories or manufacturers with known acceptable quality for the particular test, coordinating test kit shipment to the user [0006]. The user may subscribe to a recommended testing schedule and receive test kits automatically at pre-determined intervals [0018].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate sending a medical test kit to the user as taught by Bellante. This modification would create a system and methods which provides effective at-home tests to users to detect maladies early and efficiently (see Bellante, para. 0002).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad in view of Eberting, Calabrese, and Bellante et al., further in view of Paolucci et al (US 20220293260 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Arshad, Eberting, and Calabrese teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Arshad, Eberting, Calabrese do not teach the following limitations met by Paolucci:
Accepting, from a laboratory, input of a result from the medical test; (Paolucci teaches once the orders are fulfilled at the lab 160, the test results 280 can be generated, associated with the manifest 118 and included in the shared digital information 266, and reported to the user 113 [0043]. The integration tracking engine 201 also provides, to the users, test results that are generated by the lab and corresponding to medical orders [0059].)
providing the patient or the medical provider with access to the result. (Paolucci teaches once the orders are fulfilled at the lab 160, the test results 280 can be generated, associated with the manifest 118 and included in the shared digital information 266, and reported to the user 113. Also, as needed, reporting the test results 280 from the lab 160 to the device 112 or another user device can be performed [0043]. Further, the test results 280 can be populated into the physician administrative portal 601, where a physician or practice is alerted to review a test [0089].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for providing virtual medical care requested by a user wherein the medical provider places an order for the user into the computer system as disclosed by Arshad to incorporate providing the medical provider with the test result. This modification would create a system and methods which allows for the medical provider to provide the correct next step to the user following the test (see Paolucci, ¶ 0002).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to Claim 19, Applicant’s amendments have been considered, and the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(a) to Claim 9, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments.
Applicant argues independent claim 1 recites a virtual medical service method performed by a computer system and submits that the independent claims are not directed to a judicial exception. The claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea or a certain method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a computer implemented method to perform a virtual medical service. The method is performed by a computer, not humans. Claim 1 does not require any of the external human actors to follow rules or instructions. The patient is free to request a medical test and the medical provider is free to order the medical test. The remainder of the method does not require any external human activity. No person is required to follow instructions in implementing the claimed method (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 6-7).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is identified in the 101 analysis above, and Examiner notes that the computer system is not identified as being a part of the abstract idea, but instead it is an additional element. The human interaction subgroup “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” would include a method for receiving medical test information, notifying a patient, and recording such information. It is important to note that the text within the parentheses stating social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing and that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Further, Examiner notes that the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping does not require a humans to follow rules, but the grouping indicates that the series of steps could be carried out by a person following a set of instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 2, the claims also clearly integrate the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a virtual medical service method. It begins with receiving a request from a patient for a medical test and ends with recording the order for the medical test in the computer system. The claims provide an improvement to an existing technology or technical field. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application (p. 7).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees – the additional elements, as outlined individually above, are generic computer components when analyzed in light of the Specification. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Here, there is no apparent improvement to technology or a technical field in the claims or in the specification, and Applicant has not pointed to any improvement that would provide a practical application.
Applicant argues that while the Office Action asserts that the limitations of the claims "do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea," the conclusion lacks support in the cited portions of the specification. In contrast, the claim is limited to a patient-initiated method which facilitates a virtual medical service by specific steps requiring communication between various computers. As exemplified in the cited specification passage, a telecommunications network 217 facilitates communication between a computer system 209, a patient's computing device 205, and a clinic computer 223. These limitations clearly require a practical, meaningful limitation on practicing the claimed methods (p. 7-8)
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are described in the specification as the implementation of a generic component used in its expected fashion. For instance, the instant specification states that the personal device may be a smartphone (Applicant’s specification, p. 8, lines 1-5); The computer system 209 preferably includes one or any combination of server computers or cloud computing resources (p. 7, lines 3-4); The clinic computer 223 may be part of a clinic, hospital, or hospital system that also includes or communicates with an electronic medical record system 213 and also optionally a clinical services laboratory 227 (p. 9, 16-20). There is nothing in the specification that indicates the recited additional elements are anything other than generic components which are being used in their expected fashion (e.g., generic data transmission and analysis). Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
MPEP 2106.05(f) states when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims appear to merely recite the solution with no details of how the solution is reached within the claims or the specification.
Applicant argues Regarding Step 2B, even if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (which it is), the claims also recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As argued below, the present claims differ from the cited prior art references. One of the elements which is not found within the prior art is the aggregation of test requests and their subsequent bulk authorization. These steps are not "well-understood, routine, or conventional elements." Accordingly, their presence in the claim adds an unconventional steps to conventional methods that confine the claims to a particular useful application. See MPEP § 2016.05(d).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action did not assert that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, so no Berkheimer analysis was applied. Instead, the additional elements are generic computer components with mere instructions to carry out an abstract idea using these computer components. MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) states that merely saying “apply it” or an equivalent cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner, as in claim 1 of the instant claims (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above, rejecting independent Claims 1 and 16 as being unpatentable over Arshad in view of Eberting and Calabrese.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or receiving into the server an order from the medical provider for the medical test (p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arshad discloses a patient requesting a medical service through a computer server (Arshad, ¶ 0016, 0018) and further can input the request for a test as a part of the process (¶ 0185). The Examiner interprets the provider generating an order as the server receiving an order for a medical test as ¶ 0111 of Arshad states the provider can order a medical image which is a type of medical test.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights