DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 01/07/2026.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 4-7 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3 and 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority Benefit
This application priority claimed to a U.S. Provisional Patent Applications. However, the subject matter claimed in claim 1, 9, 15 (and hence dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20) is/are not found in any of the U.S. Provisional Application 63/438,645 to which applicant claims priority. As such, the Effective Filing Date of the claims 1-20, is the Effective Filing Date of the U.S. Patent Application which is 01/12/2024.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-3 and 8 are drawn to a method, Claims 9-14 are drawn to an art of manufacturer, and Claims 15-20 is drawn to a system, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-3 and 8-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process of remote health monitoring for improving healthcare for individual(s)/users. Collecting individual data and score it to determine, generate, and arrange for a care plan are steps that could have been performed by a human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Metal Process that can be performed using human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent Claim 1 and similarly claim 9 recites the steps of:
“receiving videoconference data from a videoconference between a patient and a first provider;
incorporating interview data with the videoconference data;
entering the videoconference data and incorporated interview data into an electronic health record (EHR) associated with the patient;
calculating risk assessments for the patient by comparing the interview data and historical interview data associated with the patient;
providing the interview data and calculated risk assessments to a machine learning model configured to generate a care plan for the patient based on the calculated risk assessments and the interview data;
determining a plurality of additional providers for the patient based on the generated care plan for the patient, wherein the care plan includes a quantity of time the patient is to spend with each of the plurality of additional providers and a licensure requirement for each of the plurality additional of providers;
generating a care plan schedule based on a schedule of the plurality of additional providers, a schedule of the patient, and a timeline of the generated care plan for the patient
receiving additional interview data and additional videoconference data from an additional videoconference between one of the plurality of additional providers and the patient
calculating updated risk assessments for the patient based on the additional interview data
generating an assessment score prediction for the patient based on a comparison between the interview data and the additional interview data, wherein the assessment score prediction is an exponential moving average at a particular time during the timeline of the generated care plan for the patient; and
providing the additional interview data and updated risk assessments to the machine learning model configured to generate an updated care plan for the patient based on the updated risk assessments and the additional interview data”.
Independent 15 recite similar steps as in Claim 1 and include the steps of:
“store the care plan at the scheduling database;
calculate a bill for the patient based on the interview data;
store the bill for the patient at the billing database”
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a by a human mind with aid of pen and paper reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process, along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, calculating risk assessments is/are Mathematical Concepts. The limitations encompass a user the ability to collect an individual/subject data to calculate a risk assessment and generate a care plan, determine additional provider(s), generating a schedule, receiving interview data, calculating risk, comparing interview data and update risk assessment, which are steps that could be performed using a human mind with the aid of pen and paper as such identifying an abstract idea. This abstract idea could have been performed in human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “processor, machine learning model, machine readable medium, electronic health records (EHR), billing database, scheduling database, medication database, device” that iteratively analyzes said data to determine an output performing generic computer functions for determining a care plan such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, (e.g., “store[ing]”), see MPEP 2106.05(f), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering and outputting process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). For example, the machine learning model is/are recited in the claims in a high level of generality and is described in the specification in an arbitrary form without disclosing a specific algorithm using and implementing the claimed invention available data for allowing the model to learn patterns and relationships within the data and implement it to perform the claimed function. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-20 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 2-3, 13, and 17, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process” but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 8 and 14, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, along with mathematical calculations that constitute Mathematical Concepts, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 10-12, 16, 18-20, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, along with mathematical calculations that constitute Mathematical Concepts, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “machine learning model, electronic health records (EHR), billing database, scheduling database, medication database, device, modules, learning recourse center (LRC)” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps of the claim(s) “e.g., send[ing]”, “receive[ing]”, “store[ing]”, that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claims Free of Art
Claim 1-3 and 8-20 are free of art as they overcome the prior art rejection and none of the prior art discloses the limitation of claims. Regarding independent claim 1, 9, and 15, none of the prior art teach or fairly suggests the limitation of “determining a plurality of additional providers for the patient based on the generated care plan for the patient, wherein the care plan includes a quantity of time the patient is to spend with each of the plurality of additional providers and a licensure requirement for each of the plurality additional of providers;
generating an assessment score prediction for the patient based on a comparison between the interview data and the additional interview data, wherein the assessment score prediction is an exponential moving average at a particular time during the timeline of the generated care plan for the patient”, the closest prior art of record:
Yellowlees (US 2025/0054623 A1) discloses providing videoconferencing with patients remotely and uploading diagnostic interviews of a provider with the patient and collect plurality of data and send it to additional provider(s) for further review based on determination for additional questions and testing.
Joao (US 2023/0238152 Al) discloses video call between a user device and a provider and generating a treatment plan schedule such as scheduling an appointment for the patient with the one or more provider and time and date of the appointment schedule and availability matching patient availability.
Suzani (US 2022/0188694 Al) discloses moving standard deviation of anomaly scores is adjusted based on a moving average of anomaly scores.
De Vries (US 2023/0170065 A1) discloses determining health outcomes based on healthcare data that includes medication usage, missed medication, non-optimal care plans, health insurance information, patient's healthcare utilization, gaps in care, hospitalization and emergency department visits.
Merkin (US 20160378927 A1) discloses facilitate the coordination of care amongst healthcare providers in administering care to a plurality of patients within a patient population.
Chen (CN110993081 A) discloses obtaining attribute information and illness state main complaint text of a patient to be recommended on a doctor online consultation.
However, these prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations in the independent claim 1, 8, and 15, in combination or fairly suggests or makes obvious the limitation mentioned above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues the substance:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 9-13.
On page 10 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “Applicant's claims are not directed to merely a principle that is "a fundamental truth," "an original cause," or "a motive." Nor can the claims properly be characterized as merely including a mathematical formula or a fundamental economic practice ... We respectfully disagree with this argument as to separate the actions of the claims from the computer components claimed suggests that a person could perform the actions which is unreasonable... Without the computer components, it is unreasonable to assume that person could perform these tasks simultaneously (generating an assessment score prediction that is an exponential moving average) ...”, Examiner respectfully disagree. The claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an abstract idea which have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One reciting a process for obtaining/collecting patient data, calculating risk assessment, determining, generating a care plan, determine additional provider(s), generating a schedule, receiving interview data, calculating risk, comparing interview data and update risk assessment, which are steps of observing, evaluating, judgment, and opinion that are citing a process for which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Mental Process. For Example, the Applicant argues “generating an assessment score prediction that is an exponential moving average” is unreasonable to be perform without computer components, which is a calculation to analyze data points by creating a series of averages of different selections of the full data set that is reciting a mathematical calculation. “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer... The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary".”, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
On page 11-12 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “However, for the sake of completeness of this response, even if the claims can somehow be characterized as being directed to an abstract idea (which, as noted above, Applicant disputes), it is noted that the claims further recite additional features that are sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Applicant submits that the claims include "some element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to 'significantly more' than a patent on an ineligible concept", ... A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application ... The improvement in the technological field is explained in Applicant's specification at Paragraph [0029]: ... The practical application of treating or preventing a medical condition is explained in Applicant's specification at Paragraph [0031] ...”, Examiner respectfully disagree. As mentioned above, the claims under BRI recites an abstract idea for evaluating risk assessment and treatment plan while citing addition element described at high level and as tool(s) to perform the abstract idea as such the thrust of Applicant's invention is to improve the abstract idea through leveraging computing technology, e.g., processor, machine learning model, electronic health records (EHR), databases, device, in a well understood manner. The fact that the judicial exception, identified in the rejection above, relies upon collecting user data, analyzing the data and performing mathematical process for calculating risk, does not impart an improvement to any existing computer, or any other technology or technical field. For example, the specification [0029] as presented by the Applicant describes an enhancing collaborative care model between different health care providers to provider resources and services to patients. Similarly, the specification [0031] as presented by the Applicant describes data drives relies on measurement and algorithmic method to drive care interventions between collaborative care teams to optimizes the care provided to patients. At best, this gathering of data and calculating risk assessment to be used by different providers while using a computing device may improve the abstract idea of solve managing administrative issue. However, improving upon an abstract idea does not make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Moreover, as mentioned above, the steps recited in independent claims, when viewed as a whole, recite a Mental process and the recitation of machine learning model have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two as an additional element cited as a tool for implementing the claim steps that amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement “apply” the exception using a generic computer component and no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Furthermore, while the claimed invention describes a use of trained machine learning model, there is no description of how the model is trained rather the claim(s) and specification disclosing the machine learning model at a high level of generality as generic computing components, see (Applicant [0045], [0061-0062], ), and the machine learning model as a tool such recited and not configured in a manner other than what any off-the-shelf, commercially available processor is capable of being programmed for performing generic computer functions in relation to an abstract concept. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, the Examiner has addressed the Applicant argument(s) and found this argument is not found to be persuasive. Hence, Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on page 13-16.
In light of the claim amendment, Examiner withdraws the art rejection as mentioned in the above section “claims free of art”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687