DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a request for continued examination (“RCE”) filed 9 February 2026, which is a national stage entry of an application with an international filing date of 15 June 2022, which claims domestic priority to a foreign application filed 15 June 2021.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-13 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 19-22 have been added by amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 February 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 17 and 18-22 are drawn to a computer-implemented method for computer-aided tracking of a procedure to be performed by a person, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 12 is drawn to a computer-implemented system for computer-aided tracking of a procedure to be performed by a person, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15 and 17 are drawn to a computer program product comprising instructions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method for computer-aided tracking of a procedure to be performed by a person, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
initially blocking, by the software application on the terminal device, access to the software application;
capturing, by a camera of the terminal device, biometric data of the person;
validating, by a processor of the terminal device, the captured biometric data with biometric data in a personal data set; and
identifying the person as the person that is being validated using the validated, captured biometric data;
storing, in a memory of the terminal device, the personal data set;
identifying, by the terminal device, an object to be modified by the software application by:
capturing, by the camera of the terminal device, an object identification data set;
validating, by the processor of the terminal device, the object identification data set with a machine-readable data set that is stored in a background system; and
comparing, by the processor of the terminal device, the object identification data set with the object identification data set of the background system;
tracking, by the processor of the terminal device, at least one position of the person and at least one position of the object, wherein the tracking is implemented by computer-aided gesture recognition, pattern recognition, and/or image recognition during the performance of the procedure;
instructing the person, by a display unit of the terminal device, to interact with the software application; and
documenting, by the camera of the terminal device, the interactions with the software application as the person is interacting with the software application, the verification documentation comprising capturing images at one or more times during the interactions with the software application and storing the verification documentation locally in the terminal device in a procedure identification data set;
receiving, at the terminal device, a test certificate validation token ("certificate VAL") from the background system that initiates access to the verification documentation for the person; and
providing access to the software application associated with the certificate VAL.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that involves managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – determining whether a person is the correct person to perform a procedure and is performing it correctly by observing them), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 12 and 17 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 12 and 17 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 12 recites a system and claim 17 recites a computer program product.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13 and 18-22 include other limitations, for example claims 2, 5 and 7-9 capturing data, image recognition and image tracking, claim 3 recites details of the type of examination, claims 6, 10, 11 and 18 recites various data, claim 13 recites an electronic ticketing system, claim 20 recites a QR code and serial number, and claims 21 and 22 recite use of statistics, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13 and 18-22 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13 and 18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 15 are identical as the abstract idea for claim 13, because the only difference between claims 13 and 15 is that claim 13 recites a method, whereas claim 15 recites a computer program product.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer and the camera, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph 14 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language directed to gesture recognition, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of computer recognition, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, storing, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13, 17 and 18-22 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the cameras and devices recited in claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of computer-aided recognition types of claims 2, 5 and 7 and the antigen test of claims 19 and 20), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer and the camera), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Paragraph 14 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer and the camera) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13, 17 and 18-22 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the cameras and devices recited in claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 and the antigen test of claims 19 and 20), and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of computer-aided recognition types of claims 2, 5 and 7 and the validation token of claims 13), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17 and 18-22 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 15 and 17, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. See 1351 OG 212 (February 23, 2010).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Udani (U.S. PG-Pub 2012/0323589 A1), further in view of Aman et al. et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2024/0005432 A1), hereinafter Aman.
As per claims 1, 12 and 17, Udani discloses a computer program product comprising instructions, a computer-implemented system for computer-aided tracking of interactions with a software application on a terminal device that track a procedure to be performed by a person and a computer-implemented method for computer-aided tracking of interactions with a software application on a terminal device that tracks a procedure to be performed by a person, wherein the computer-implemented method comprises the following steps (Udani, see Figs. 1-3.):
capturing, by a camera of the terminal device, biometric data of the person (Udani, electronic compliance device captures user’s biometric data using a camera, see paragraphs 244-245.); and
validating, by a processor of the terminal device, the captured biometric data with biometric data in a personal data set (Captured biometric data is compared to stored biometric data in order to identify the person in procedure, see paragraphs 156, 172 and 245-247.);
identifying the person as the person that is being validated using the validated, captured biometric data (Captured biometric data is compared to stored biometric data in order to identify the person in procedure, see paragraphs 156, 172 and 245-247.);
storing, in a memory of the terminal device, the personal data set (Captured biometric data is compared to stored biometric data in order to identify the person in procedure, see paragraphs 156, 172 and 245-247.);
identifying, by the terminal device, an object to be modified by the software application by (Udani, electronic compliance device identifies an item to be modified by the procedure, such as a pill, by use of a video or still image taken, see paragraphs 249-250 and 255.):
capturing, by the camera of the terminal device, an object identification data set (Udani, electronic compliance device identifies an item to be modified by the procedure, such as a pill, by use of a video or still image taken, see paragraphs 249-250 and 255.);
validating, by the processor of the terminal device, the object identification data set with a machine-readable data set that is stored in a background system (Udani, electronic compliance device identifies an item to be modified by the procedure, such as a pill, by use of a video or still image taken, see paragraphs 249-250 and 255. Udani discloses that the system compares the captured picture of the item with a library of observed physical characteristics of various items, which would comprise the machine-readable data that is stored in a background system, see paragraph 101, Fig. 1 #110 and claim 15.); and
comparing, by the processor of the terminal device, the object identification data set with the object identification data set of the background system (Udani, electronic compliance device identifies an item to be modified by the procedure, such as a pill, by use of a video or still image taken, see paragraphs 249-250 and 255. Udani discloses that the system compares the captured picture of the item with a library of observed physical characteristics of various items, which would comprise the machine-readable data that is stored in a background system, see paragraph 101, Fig. 1 #110 and claim 15.);
tracking, by the processor of the terminal device, at least one position of the person and at least one position of the object, wherein the tracking is implemented by computer-aided gesture recognition, pattern recognition, and/or image recognition during the performance of the procedure (Electronic compliance unit uses computer vision algorithms to determine whether the recorded motion of the subject matches an expected body movement for performing the procedure, see paragraph 245.);
instructing the person, by a display unit of the terminal device, to interact with the software application (System provides instruction for user to perform procedure according to determined schedule, see Udani paragraphs 251-252.); and
documenting, by the camera of the terminal device, the interactions with the software application as the person is interacting with the software application, the verification documentation comprising capturing images at one or more times during the interactions with the software application and storing the verification documentation locally in the terminal device in a procedure identification data set (Udani discloses documenting the subject’s interaction with the software application, see Figs. 3C-3D and corresponding text. Recorded information is stored locally, see paragraphs 11, 172, 173, 245 and 254);
Udani fails to explicitly disclose:
initially blocking, by the software application on the terminal device, access to the software application;
receiving, at the terminal device, a test certificate validation token ("certificate VAL") from the background system that initiates access to the verification documentation for the person; and
providing access to the software application associated with the certificate VAL.
Aman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide blocking access to software until the system receives a validation certificate token (Aman, see the presentation of access token of paragraphs 279-280 which grants access to the app.) in order to only allow authorized users to access a system (Aman, Abstract.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Kestone to include blocking access to arrive at a system for assuring compliance that only allows authorized users to access a system.
Both Udani and Aman are directed to the electronic processing of patient data to determine protocol compliance. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10 and 11, Udani/Aman disclose claim 1, discussed above. Udani also discloses:
2. wherein identifying the person comprises capturing, by the camera of the terminal device, a face of the person and the method further comprises: analyzing, by the processor of the terminal device, the captured face, wherein the processor uses a computer-aided face recognition process, in order to obtain the biometric data of the person and wherein the identification of the person is repeated at one or more random times during the performance of the procedure (Captured biometric data is compared to stored biometric data in order to identify the person in procedure; biometric data includes face recognition and corresponding algorithms, see paragraphs 107, 122, 156, 172, 224, 245-247 and 285. Udani captures and stores entire performance, therefore, all times are captured, which would include one or more random times.);
3. wherein the procedure is a human medical examination of a body fluid of the person himself or a veterinary medical examination of a body fluid on an animal by the person, wherein the body fluid is blood, swab, saliva, aerosol, tear fluid, sweat, sputum, urine, a collection from a skin surface and/or feces of the person and/or the animal (Udani, paragraphs 46, 82, 205, 207 and 251);
5. wherein immediately before the person performs the procedure, an aid to be used during the procedure is captured by the camera of the terminal device, and wherein the captured aid is analyzed by a computer-aided face recognition process, pattern recognition, and/or image recognition in order to identify the aid (System is operative to use image recognition to identify aids to the procedure, such as pills, pill bottles, specimen bottles or any necessary supplies, see paragraphs 250 and 255.);
6. wherein after validation of the machine-readable data set the object identification data set, or the procedure data set, a status of the procedure in a database of the background system is stored as an invalid procedure (Udani, paragraphs 209 and 249.);
7. detecting by the camera of the terminal device, movement of the at least one position of the object and the person, and wherein the movement of the person and the object is analyzed by a computer-aided face recognition process, pattern recognition, and/or image recognition (Secondary embodiment of Udani discloses tracking the movement and position of the user’s eyes and gaze, see paragraphs 157-159 and 163.);
8. wherein, in the tracking comprises: detecting, by the camera of the terminal device, an object property of the object; analyzing, by the processor of the terminal device, the detected object property of the object, wherein the processor uses a computer-aided face recognition process, pattern recognition, and/or image recognition; and comparing, by the processor of the terminal device, the analyzed object property of the object with an object property stored locally in the memory of the terminal device (System is operative to use image recognition to identify objects of the procedure, such as pills or pill bottles, see Udani paragraph 250.);
10. wherein a procedure data set of the background system and the procedure identification data set map to a procedure result (All data is stored within system, including results of subject compliance, see Udani paragraphs 246-254.); and
11. displaying by a display unit of the terminal device, an instructional indication, wherein the instructional indication is provided in dependence on the performance of the procedure and/or in dependence on the tracking of positions and movements of the person and the object by the terminal device during the performance of the procedure using the testing procedure application (System provides instruction for user to perform procedure according to determined schedule, see Udani paragraphs 251-252. Providing instructions to perform a procedure would result in an instructional indication provided in dependence on the performance of the procedure).
As per claims 19 and 20, Udani/Aman disclose claim 1, discussed above. Udani fails to explicitly disclose:
19. wherein the software application on the terminal device is an antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and the object is a test cassette, a test strip, a measuring strip, a reagent in a container, or a human medical test sensor; and
20. wherein the object comprises a QR code and serial number associated to the antigen test for SARS-CoV-2.
Aman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
19. wherein the software application on the terminal device is an antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and the object is a test cassette, a test strip, a measuring strip, a reagent in a container, or a human medical test sensor (Aman discloses testing for Covid, including kits, see paragraphs 245, 275, 365 and 541.); and
20. wherein the object comprises a QR code and serial number associated to the antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 (Aman discloses use of a NFC tag attached to objects for identification; a secondary embodiment of Aman discloses use of QR codes, which are also well known to comprise serial numbers, see paragraphs 620 and 621.),
in order to only allow authorized users to access a system (Aman, Abstract.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Kestone to include Covid testing application and kits and use of identification systems therewith, in order to arrive at a system for assuring compliance that only allows authorized users to access a system.
Both Udani and Aman are directed to the electronic processing of patient data to determine protocol compliance. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 9 and 18, Udani/Aman disclose claims 8 and 7, respectively, as discussed above. Udani also discloses providing information … if it is determined in the analyzing step that the detected position of the person and/or the detected movement of the person and/or the detected position of the object and/or the detected movement of the object are outside fixed specifications of the procedure (Subject compliance is determined by tracking subject movement, see paragraph 245. Compliance unit also provides alerts, see paragraphs 266-267.).
Udani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method is terminated with an error message.
Aman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide terminating a method with an error message for safety issues, see paragraph 127.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Aman to include terminating a method with an error message, as taught by Aman, in order to arrive at a system for assuring compliance that provides additional safety provisions. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Udani/Aman further in view of D. Conde-Lagoa et al. "Secure eTickets based on QR-Codes with user-encrypted content," 2010 Digest of Technical Papers International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2010, pp. 257-258, doi: 10.1109 /ICCE.2010.5418880.), hereinafter eTickets.
As per claims 13 and 15, Udani/Aman disclose claim 1, discussed above. Udani fails to explicitly disclose:
displaying the certificate VAL as a machine-readable code and displaying the result of the procedure on a display unit of the terminal device;
in response to validating the certificate VAL, displaying of a validation result relating to the procedure result together with the procedure result and the scatter value via the personal data set and preferably procedure information of the background system on a display unit of the test instance.
eTickets teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
displaying the certificate VAL as a machine-readable code using the validation token and displaying the result of the procedure on a display unit of the terminal device (eTickets, page1, right-hand column: “generate QR code”.);
in response to validating the certificate VAL, displaying of a validation result relating to the procedure result together with the procedure result and the scatter value via the personal data set and preferably procedure information of the background system on a display unit of the test instance (eTickets, page1, right-hand column and Fig. 2: wherein it must be implicitly be assumed that a failed validation is displayed.” It is well known in the arts to provide plural relevant information simultaneously.) in order to provide requestable secure verification of output data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Aman to include the electronic ticketing system of eTickets in order to arrive at a system for assuring compliance that offers requestable secure verification of output data.
Both Udani and eTickets are directed to the electronic processing of data for verification reasons. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Udani/Aman further in view of Shiffman et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2006/0184493 A1), hereinafter Shiffman.
As per claim 21, Udani/Aman disclose claim 1, discussed above. Udani fails to explicitly disclose in response to determining statistical misuse of the software application, subsequently blocking access to the software application.
Shiffman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in response to determining statistical misuse of the software application, subsequently blocking access to the software application (Shiffman discloses removing a subject for their noncompliance with system requirements, as documented through the software system, see paragraphs 32, 56 and 63.) in order to block noncompliant subjects (Shiffman, Abstract.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Aman to include the blocking of use in response to repeated misuse of the application, as taught by Shiffman, because to do so would result in a system for assuring compliance that removed noncompliant subjects.
Both Udani and Shiffman are directed to the electronic processing of data for verification reasons. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Udani/Aman further in view of Zaharik et al. (U.S. Patent 11,011,278 B1), hereinafter Zaharik.
As per claim 22, Udani/Aman disclose claim 1, discussed above. Udani fails to explicitly disclose in response to determining use of the software application, determining a regional statistic associated with the use.
Zaharik teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in response to determining use of the software application, determining a regional statistic associated with the use (Zaharik, C15L20-45.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for assuring compliance of Udani/Aman to include the regional statistic determination of Zaharik, because to do so would result in a system for assuring compliance that tracked results across different areas.
Both Udani and Zaharik are directed to the electronic processing of data for verification reasons. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 February 2026 concerning the rejection of the of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and have been deemed persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly, this rejection has been removed.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 February 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 10-13 that:
A. Step 2A – Prong 1: the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity as they recite computer structure and functions.; and
B. Step 2A – Prong 2: The claims present a practical application of a human activity via the function of blocking use of the software.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the new statutory rejection of the claims issued above, where the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A., as shown above the recitation of the computer and related components is not part of the abstract idea, it comprises additional information that does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding B., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computing environment. The problem of verification of healthcare providers and procedures was not a problem cause by the computing environment, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computing environment is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a personnel or business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Accordingly, the statutory rejection is upheld.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 18-19 that Udani and Kestone fail to disclose the claims as amended.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new reference necessitated by amendment, Aman, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Udani, Aman, Shiffman, Zaharik, Kestone and eTickets, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (7 November 2025 and 25 July 2025), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
25 February 2026