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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 01/08/2026 Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determine, by utilizing a physician assessment engine, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, matches criteria from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol specific to the provider, wherein the standing order protocol comprises at least one decision tree defined with at least one parameter that is configured to execute at least one specific action” is indefinite. The manner in which the limitation is written renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. First, it is unclear if the “decision tree” or the “parameter” is “configured to execute at least one specific action”. Further, it is unclear as to how a “decision tree” (e.g., flowchart) or a parameter (e.g. condition) are capable of performing the function of “executing”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “finalize the digital record if the standing order protocol and the provider standards protocol matches the criteria and execute at least one action instructed in the digital record” is indefinite. The limitation is preceded by “determine, by utilizing a physician assessment engine, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, matches criteria from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol specific to the provider, wherein the standing order protocol comprises at least one decision tree defined with at least one parameter that is configured to execute at least one specific action”. Based on this, the criteria originates from the standing order protocol and provider standards protocol. Therefore, it is unclear how it is determined if the criteria matches the standing order protocol and provider standards protocol. For sake of examination, the Examiner shall interpret the limitation as “finalize the digital record if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, matches the criteria and execute at least one action instructed in the digital record”, in order to coincide with the preceding limitation and the limitation “place, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, does not match the criteria, the digital record in an assessment list for further review”.
Independent claims 14 and 20 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected as well since they inherit the limitations of the independent claims.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites (additional elements crossed out):
A system, comprising:
interact, b
generate,
generate,
determine,
finalize the
place, if the prediction for the assessment, the
update, based on an input received that is associated with the further review, the
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “memory” a “processor”, “engines”, and a “sensor” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. For example, but for the “memory”, “processor”, “engines”, and a “sensor” language, the limitations describe a system for generating a prediction for an assessment (i.e., predicted diagnosis) based on received information, generating a digital record (i.e., plan) based on the prediction of the assessment, determining if the prediction of the assessment or the digital record matches criteria from protocols, finalizing the digital record if there is a match, placing the prediction of the assessment and/or the digital record in an assessment list for further review if there is not a match, and updating the digital record and/or the assessment based on the further review. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior, as well as actions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a “memory” a “processor”, “engines”, and a “sensor” to perform the steps. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Para [0078) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components (the Examiner notes that the structure of the “engines” do not appear to be described at all). Accordingly, 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 claims further recite a “digital record”. However, the record being digital merely serves to place the judicial exception into a computing environment. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a “memory”, a “processor”, “engines”, and a “sensor” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 14 and 20 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Claims 2-13 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 11. Claims 15-19 are dependent on claim 14, and include all the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 10 features the additional limitation of “train an artificial intelligence model supporting the physician assessment engine to facilitate identification of a medical complaint, generation of a plan, generation of a diagnosis, predications for assessments, or a combination thereof”. However, said “training” is recited at such a high level of generality that it may reasonably be considered as an abstract idea in the “mental process” category and/or “mathematical process” category. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (US 2019/0311807) in view of Brown (US 2023/0036102).
Regarding claim 1, Kannan discloses A system, comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and (See at least Para. [0025])
a processor configured to execute the instructions to: (See at least Para. [0025])
interact, by utilizing a triage artificial intelligence engine and by utilizing at least one sensor, with an individual to obtain information from the individual and sensor data; (See at least Para. [0044] – “The user input interface 104 may integrate the different modalities into a multimodal representation to be processed by the conversational engine 114, as described below.”, and “Sometimes, the user output interface 106 may also need to present the user with questions in order to elicit additional and the right kind of information such that the system 100 is able provide a confident recommendation.”, and Para. [0059] – “While a patient may interact directly with a web-based application 302 and/or a mobile device application 304, the cloud service system 300 may also provide the ability to input data from medical and health devices 308 (e.g., a heart-rate monitor, an at-home blood pressure device, etc.), as well as results from laboratory tests 310 (e.g., from conventional laboratories, at-home or in-pharmacy instruments, etc.).”
generate, by utilizing the triage artificial intelligence engine and based on the information and sensor data, a prediction for an assessment associated with the individual, wherein the prediction for the assessment is based on the information having a correlation with training information utilized to train the triage artificial intelligence engine; (See at least Para. [0046] – “The conversational engine 114 may be in charge of understanding user's input(s), reasoning about the user's input(s ), and deciding what is the most appropriate output(s) after consulting with the DDx 116 and the KB 118. The DDx 116 may produce a ranked list of possible diagnoses given any number of findings, which may be symptoms expressed by the patient as well as their history, demographics, etc. In an embodiment, the DDx 116 may be based on rules in a knowledge based codifying probabilistic relationships between symptoms/findings and diseases. In another embodiment, the DDx 116 may be based on machine learned models deriving relations between symptoms/findings and diseases from historical medical records. In yet another embodiment, the DDx 116 may be based on machine-learned models deriving both probabilities and relationships from historic medical records. In another embodiment, the DDx 116 may be based on machine learned models learned from mixed data that includes at least one of synthetic data generated by a pre-existing expert system, electronic medical records, manual cases, labeled cases from the diagnosis engine, as will be described below.”, as well as Para. [0059])
generate, by utilizing the triage artificial intelligence engine and based on the prediction for the assessment, a digital record associated with the individual, wherein the digital record includes a plan associated with the assessment; See at least Para. [0068] – “Once all needed information is obtained from the user, the method 600 decides, at step 680, whether a confident recommendation may be made. If a confident recommendation may not be made at step 680, the user's inquiry is escalated to a doctor, at step 640. Otherwise, a recommendation ( e.g., diagnosis, referral, treatment, etc.) is made to the user at step 690. The goal of the method 600, therefore, is to provide at least one of a plurality of actionable recommendations to the user.”
determine, by utilizing a physician assessment engine, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, matches criteria from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol specific to the provider, wherein the standing order protocol comprises at least one decision tree defined with at least one parameter that is configured to execute at least one specific action; (See Para. [0113] – “Given a disease, or cluster of diseases that may afflict a patient, a component of the system 100 may be designed to sort through alternative possible treatments, qualify them based upon relevance to the patient's symptoms and history, and propose possible treatments that the patient could pursue.” The Examiner asserts that the language stating that the criteria is “from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol specific to a provider, wherein the standing order protocol comprises at least one decision tree defined with at least one parameter that is configured to execute at least one specific action” is merely a label for the criteria, Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., where the criteria comes from) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., determining if the criteria is matched) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the criteria of Kannon be from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol because the source of the criteria does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and sourcing criteria differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
finalize the digital record if the standing order protocol and the provider standards protocol matches the criteria; (In light of the 112 rejection, See Para. [0113] – “Given a disease, or cluster of diseases that may afflict a patient, a component of the system 100 may be designed to sort through alternative possible treatments, qualify them based upon relevance to the patient's symptoms and history, and propose possible treatments that the patient could pursue.”
Kannon does not explicitly disclose execute at least one action instructed in the digital record (See Brown, Para. [0047] – “The recommended action 452 may identify proposed next steps to take in treating the patient 404. For example, the recommended action 452 may indicate that the patient 404, or a medical professional on the patient's 404 behalf, should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist or therapist. In certain implementations, the intervention 414 may be presented as an alert to the patient 404 and/or another medical professional. In additional or alternative implementations, the computer system 402 may automatically implement one or more recommended actions 452. For example, the computer system 402 may automatically schedule an appointment with a doctor or therapist on behalf of the patient 404 and/or may present to the patient 404 with the available appointment times for one or more identified doctors.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan to utilize the teachings of Brown since it may decrease response time and improve patient outcomes (Para. [0048]).
place, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, does not match the criteria, the digital record in an assessment list for further review; and (See at least Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity).”
update, based on an input received that is associated with the further review, the digital record, the assessment, or a combination thereof. (See at least Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity).”
Regarding claim 2, Kannan does not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein processor is further configured to automatically execute an action associated with the assessment if the standing order protocol, the provider standards protocol, or a combination thereof, matches the criteria. (See Brown, Para. [0047] – “The recommended action 452 may identify proposed next steps to take in treating the patient 404. For example, the recommended action 452 may indicate that the patient 404, or a medical professional on the patient's 404 behalf, should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist or therapist. In certain implementations, the intervention 414 may be presented as an alert to the patient 404 and/or another medical professional. In additional or alternative implementations, the computer system 402 may automatically implement one or more recommended actions 452. For example, the computer system 402 may automatically schedule an appointment with a doctor or therapist on behalf of the patient 404 and/or may present to the patient 404 with the available appointment times for one or more identified doctors.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan to utilize the teachings of Brown since it may decrease response time and improve patient outcomes (Para. [0048]).)
Regarding claim 3, Kannan does not explicitly disclose The system of claim 2, wherein the action comprises creating an order associated with the individual, generating a referral to a provider, providing an education resource to the individual, generating a prescription for the individual, generating an appointment for the individual, or any combination thereof. (See Brown, Para. [0047] - “For example, the recommended action 452 may indicate that the patient 404, or a medical professional on the patient's 404 behalf, should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist or therapist. In certain implementations, the intervention 414 may be presented as an alert to the patient 404 and/or another medical professional. In additional or alternative implementations, the computer system 402 may automatically implement one or more recommended actions 452. For example, the computer system 402 may automatically schedule an appointment with a doctor or therapist on behalf of the patient 404 and/or may present to the patient 404 with the available appointment times for one or more identified doctors.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan to utilize the teachings of Brown since it may decrease response time and improve patient outcomes (Para. [0048]).)
Regarding claim 4, Kannan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a type of encounter for the individual based on the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof. (See Para. [0105] – “As described before, the goal to the system 100 is to answer patient questions by giving a set of actionable recommendations that may include not only a diagnostic and triaging, but also referral or treatment. One important action able recommendation that a patient that is looking for information about her health situation can get is whether she needs to visit a doctor and what is the relative urgency of the medical attention. This is accomplished by the ability of the system 100 to triage patients. In most situations, the triaging decision may be accomplished by formulating a diagnosis and classifying the diagnosis into the required attention and urgency. However, in many other situations, the simple existence of a symptom can trigger a triage recommendation. For example, chest pain on an elderly patient or high fever in an infant will trigger an automatic recommendation to visit the emergency room regardless of the confidence on the diagnosis.”)
Regarding claim 5, Kannan discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to generate, based on the type of encounter, a notification for the individual to proceed to an emergency room, contact a first responder, or a combination thereof. (See Para. [0105] – “As described before, the goal to the system 100 is to answer patient questions by giving a set of actionable recommendations that may include not only a diagnostic and triaging, but also referral or treatment. One important action able recommendation that a patient that is looking for information about her health situation can get is whether she needs to visit a doctor and what is the relative urgency of the medical attention. This is accomplished by the ability of the system 100 to triage patients. In most situations, the triaging decision may be accomplished by formulating a diagnosis and classifying the diagnosis into the required attention and urgency. However, in many other situations, the simple existence of a symptom can trigger a triage recommendation. For example, chest pain on an elderly patient or high fever in an infant will trigger an automatic recommendation to visit the emergency room regardless of the confidence on the diagnosis.”
Regarding claim 6, Kannan discloses The system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to place, based on the type of encounter and if a consultation for the individual is not required, the digital record into a worklist for further review by a provider. (See at least Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity).”
Regarding claim 8, Kannan does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to generate, based on the type of encounter, a notification to schedule a consultation with a provider. (See Brown, Para. [0047] - “For example, the recommended action 452 may indicate that the patient 404, or a medical professional on the patient's 404 behalf, should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist or therapist. In certain implementations, the intervention 414 may be presented as an alert to the patient 404 and/or another medical professional. In additional or alternative implementations, the computer system 402 may automatically implement one or more recommended actions 452. For example, the computer system 402 may automatically schedule an appointment with a doctor or therapist on behalf of the patient 404 and/or may present to the patient 404 with the available appointment times for one or more identified doctors.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan to utilize the teachings of Brown since it may decrease response time and improve patient outcomes (Para. [0048]).)
Regarding claim 9, Kannan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to finalize the digital record after updating the digital record, the assessment, or a combination thereof. (See at least Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity).”
Regarding claim 10, Kannan discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to train an artificial intelligence model supporting the physician assessment engine to facilitate identification of a medical complaint, generation of a plan, generation of a diagnosis, predictions for assessments, or a combination thereof. (See para. [0102] – “FIG. 12 illustrates a method 1200 of training a machine-learned model for a diagnosis engine in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The method 1200 may start at step 1210 with a rule-based expert system. At step 1220, the rule-based expert system is used as a generative model to create sample medical cases. At step 1240, the sample medical cases created at step 1220 are used to train a machine-learned model. The machine-learned model may then be applied to a medical decision support system at step 1250. This becomes a novel and effective way to extend and generalize expert systems that can then be combined at the data level. At step 1230, the medical cases generated by the expert system may be combined with other medical cases such as manually generated medical cases 1260, medical cases 1270 gathered from sources such as EMRs, and/or labeled medical cases 1280 from the system usage itself.”
Regarding claim 11, Kannan discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to initiate or schedule a teleconference for a consultation between the individual and a provider if the individual is determined to require a consultation with the provider. (See Para. [0112] – “On the other hand, the system 100 may also provide the possibility to refer directly to in-house physicians through text or video consultation.”
Regarding claim 13, Kannan discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide, if the individual is required to have a consultation with a provider, an option to select an in-person visit with the provider in a location in a vicinity of the individual, a device of the individual, or a combination thereof. (See Para. [0121] – “Similarly, some situations may require the patient to undergo some form of laboratory testing. In some cases, the kind of testing might be available through some form of at-home procedure (e.g., blood pressure), but in many other cases the patient may need to visit a physician or pharmacist. For the former, the system 100 may refer the patient to existing third-party applications and solutions. For the latter, the system 100 may refer the patient to nearby facilities considering all the information about the patient and the current situation (e.g., how urgent the test is). In any of these cases, the system 100 may facilitate the paperwork. The system 100 may include a database of pharmacies and doctors that may provide a given test procedure.”
Claim 14 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Kannan discloses The method of claim 14, further comprising providing the digital record to a billing system, the individual, a third party, or a combination thereof. (See at least Para. [0068] – “Once all needed information is obtained from the user, the method 600 decides, at step 680, whether a confident recommendation may be made. If a confident recommendation may not be made at step 680, the user's inquiry is escalated to a doctor, at step 640. Otherwise, a recommendation ( e.g., diagnosis, referral, treatment, etc.) is made to the user at step 690. The goal of the method 600, therefore, is to provide at least one of a plurality of actionable recommendations to the user.”)
Regarding claim 17, Kannan discloses The method of claim 16, further comprising determining, if the assessment indicates that a consultation with a provider is required for the individual. (See Para. [0112] – “The system 100 may present a ranked list of recommendations. The system 100 may include a database of doctors and facilities that can provide a given medical procedure or service.”)
Regarding claim 18, Kannan discloses The method of claim 17, further comprising confirming that the prediction is accurate for the assessment if the provider standards protocol specific to the provider matches information in the prediction for the assessment. (See Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity”).” The Examiner notes that the approval of the diagnosis may be interpreted as confirming that the prediction is accurate for the assessment.)
Regarding claim 19, Kannan discloses The method of claim 18, further comprising executing an action associated with the provider standards protocol specific to the provider if the accuracy for the prediction for the assessment is confirmed. (See Para. [0134] – “Any of the response from step 1440, the next question from step 1460, and the diagnosis or treatment from step 1470 may require an optional approval/edit by a medical expert at step 1480 before being presented to the user. For example, the method 1400 may trigger step 1480 based on predefined settings ( e.g., a physician may need to approve diagnosis recommendations that include diagnosis above a certain severity).” The Examiner notes that the presentation of the diagnosis or treatment may be interpreted as an action associated with the provider standards protocol specific to the provider.)
Claim 20 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (US 2019/0311807) in view of in view of Brown (US 2023/0036102), and in further view of Waisbren (US 2009/0276242)
Regarding claim 7, Kannan and Brown do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to determine if a matching provider standards protocol for the provider exists. (See Waisbren, Para. [0074] – “Thus, the patient will enter their specific diagnosis or symptom. The search engine will then match that diagnosis to the physician that listed it as one of their clinical interests. These clinical interests will be much more specific than specialties. For instance, all otolaryngologists may treat nasal polyps, but those otolaryngologists who specifically list nasal polyps as interests will be selected first with the search engine. These interests may also be listed by therapy. For example, the patient may wish to have his hernia repaired using laparoscopic rather open surgical techniques. Thus, the surgeon will list his clinical interest as laparoscopic surgery and use CPT codes for laparoscopic hernia repair. Thus, only those general surgeons who actually perform this laparoscopic repair will be matched to the patient seeking advice on laparoscopic hernia repair. In this way the search engine can search for diagnosis (based on ICD9 codes) and procedures (based on CPT codes).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan and Brown to utilize the teachings of Waisbren since it would ensure inclusion of relevant physicians.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (US 2019/0311807) in view of Brown (US 2023/0036102), and in further view of Kahn (US 2019/0147141).
Regarding claim 12, Kannan and Brown do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to provide an option to enter a digital waiting room for the teleconference if the provider is available when the individual is determined to require a consultation with the provider. (See Kahn, Para. [0007] – “In such configurations, upon accessing and logging into the website, the client is permitted to search a database for online experts and select an appropriate expert for a counseling session. In some configurations, the client initially completes various intake and/or registration forms in a virtual waiting room, wherein such forms are customized per the relevant expert. The method continues as an expert remotely conducts a counseling session with the client via remote means, including video conferencing. Following the counseling session, the client is automatically returned to the virtual waiting room and provided with subsequent counseling based options.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan and Brown to utilize the teachings of Kahn since it may help to put clients at ease (Para. [0105]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (US 2019/0311807) in view of Brown (US 2023/0036102), and in further view of Benigno (US 6,230,142)
Regarding claim 15, Kannan and Brown do not explicitly disclose The method of claim 14, further comprising updating the standing order protocol, the provider standards protocol, or a combination thereof, over time as new standing order protocols, new provider standards protocols, or a combination thereof, are generated. (See Benigno, Col. 5, Lines 33-38 – “A particularly effective aspect of the invention is that the system includes functionality for continuously reviewing the clinical pathway and treatment data for trends and, where appropriate, prompting appropriate parties of the need to change the default treatment protocols and clinical pathway or to change the particular treatment orders for a patient.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kannan and Brown to utilize the teachings of Beningo since it would ensure that the most up to date treatment protocol is used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application and the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant bases this on the utilization of a “triage artificial intelligence engine” and at least one “sensor”. This is not persuasive. As stated in the body of the 101 rejection above, this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Applicant argues that the claims improved computational efficiency achieved by training and protocol-driven automation. This is not persuasive as the claims do not feature any actual “training”. Further, the specification fails to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplishes this alleged improvement. Paragraph [0074] states, in part, “For example, by training the system 100 over time based on data and/or other information provided and/or generated in the system 100, a reduced amount of computer operations may need to be performed by the devices in the system 100 using the processors and memories of the system 100 than compared to traditional methodologies. In such a context, less processing power needs to be utilized because the processors and memories do not need to be dedicated for processing.” The specification merely makes a conclusory statement that the training results in the need of less processing. Moreover, the specification appears to be silent in regards to the particular details of the training process, other than the data used to train the triage artificial intelligence engine, and the intended result of the training (See at least Para. [0073])
Applicant’s argument regarding Alice is not persuasive as the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Based on at least these reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues again that Kannan does not disclose a “digital record”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous action, Paragraph [0068] states, in part, “If a confident recommendation may not be made at step 680, the user's inquiry is escalated to a doctor, at step 640. Otherwise, a recommendation ( e.g., diagnosis, referral, treatment, etc.) is made to the user at step 690. The goal of the method 600, therefore, is to provide at least one of a plurality of actionable recommendations to the user.” By broadest reasonable interpretation, a “recommendation” being provided by electronic means is equivalent to a “digital record”.
Applicant argues the “Kannan’s disclosure of “sorting through alternative possible treatments” and “propos[ing] possible treatments” based on relevance to symptoms and history is materially different from the claimed protocol-matching against defined decision trees and provider-specific standards”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not call for “protocol-matching”. The claim limitation in question states “determine, by utilizing a physician assessment engine, if the prediction for the assessment, the digital record, or a combination thereof, matches criteria from a standing order protocol and a provider standards protocol specific to the provider, wherein the standing order protocol comprises at least one decision tree defined with at least one parameter that is configured to execute at least one specific action”. The limitation calls for the matching of an undisclosed criteria. By broadest reasonable interpretation, said “criteria” may include a level of relevance. Therefore, Kannan does teach the limitation.
Applicant appears to argue that Kannan does not teach the limitation “finalize the digital record if the standing order protocol and the provider standards protocol matches the criteria and execute at least one action instructed in the digital record”. This argument is moot at least in part due to the application of additional prior art.
For at least these reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights