DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The current application claims benefit of provisional application 63/465484, filed on May 10th, 2023. Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s claim for priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
In the response dated November 24, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1 and 7. Claims 13-15 are canceled. Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are pending.
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 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture. However, it will be shown in the following steps, that claims 1-12 and 16-20 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 7 states:
A method for facilitating video conferencing comprising:
creating communication interface channels for receiving patient-related data from a transmission platform,
receiving, through the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from the transmission platform,
authenticating the message,
parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system,
transmitting the parsed patient-related data to one or more in-room devices, and
configuring a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes and/or organizing human activity because each bolded component can practically be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer terms like in-room devices, nothing in the claims precludes the bold-font portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving, through the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from a transmission platform” in the context of this claim encompasses a user taking in annotated patient information from their colleagues through their patient intake forms. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
A method for facilitating video conferencing comprising:
creating communication interface channels for receiving patient-related data from a transmission platform,
receiving, through the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from the transmission platform,
authenticating the message,
as drafted, could lay out a healthcare provider determining the validity of some notes transferred from another colleague regarding a patient’s plan of care. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps include managing personal behavior as an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 16 cover similar steps of creating communication interface channels, receiving a message containing patient-related data, authenticating the message, and parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message. These claims fall under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 7.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting particular aspects of how “the one or more processors are further caused to verify the patient-related data using an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system” may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 18 add additional elements to their parent claims which will be further inspected in the following steps for a practical application to their abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception of “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 7’s method recites additional elements such as in-room devices. In addition to the generic components and additional elements listed above, independent claims 1’s system also includes servers and processors. The in-room devices, servers, and processors will be treated as a generic computer components. In particular, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (recitation of “parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system” amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of “transmitting the standardized patient-related data to one or more in-room devices,” and “configuring a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform.” amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 18 add additional elements of an Electronic Medical Record and an application program interface to their parent claims. Additionally, claims 2 and 8, “the one or more processors are further caused to verify the patient-related data using an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system” as well as claims 4, 10, and 18 “parsing the patient data further comprises retrieving video-related data from the transmission platform using an application programming interface” add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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 do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claims 3, 5- 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 19-20 do not recite additional elements or activity but further narrow or define the abstract idea embodied in the claims and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
To elaborate:
“parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system”, is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
“transmitting the standardized patient-related data to one or more in-room devices” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
“configuring a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. These additional limitations amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of an Electronic Medical Record System. Perednia (US20030120516) demonstrates “Similar in a basic way to conventional electronic medical record (EMR) systems, information generated during a healthcare provider visit can be inputted into such a system and stored in electronic form” that Electronic medical records were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of an application program interface. Hamlin (Pat. 6665772) demonstrates “when an application program makes a function call that does not involve stream data, any of a plurality of conventional application program interfaces… can be called” that application program interfaces were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
To elaborate:
claims 2, and 8 “the one or more processors are further caused to verify the patient-related data using an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system” , is equivalently, storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv);
claims 4, 10, and 18 “parsing the patient data further comprises retrieving video-related data from the transmission platform using an application programming interface”, is equivalently, Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A;
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fielder et al. (US20210104305) in view of Hoffer (US20210209249).
Regarding claim 1, Fielder teaches.
A communication system for facilitating video conferencing comprising: ([0054] “FIG. 1, an embodiment of an electronic communications system 100 for the interactive sharing of information within a healthcare institution is shown.” Is a video conferencing system)
one or more servers, wherein the one or more servers are communicatively coupled to a transmission platform for facilitating communications with one or more in-room devices, ([0060] In addition, the system 100 enhances the patient experience by providing patients with the ability to submit requests and feedback data … to the system 100 through user interfaces of each patient's device (e.g., smart television)… This data, and other feedback data (e.g., relating to patient education feedback data 212) is channeled through the application server 108 and/or integration server 106, and exchanged with the EMR system 104, third party vendor applications, or other applications as appropriate.” Where the application server [comprising one or more servers] integrated with [i.e., communicatively couples to] a system [comprising a transmission platform] for communicating to a patients’ device [i.e., an in-room device]) wherein the transmission platform is configured to send and receive video-related data; ([0054] “Referring now to FIG. 1, an embodiment of an electronic communications system 100 for the interactive sharing of information within a healthcare institution is shown.”; see also [0079] “The system application program 306 is also configured to call, communicate with, or otherwise rely upon a streaming server 114. In this embodiment, the streaming server 114 is a virtual machine server configured to store video and other media content” where the system application program [comprising the transmission platform] stores video content [i.e., video- related data])
and one or more processors containing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: [Figure 19b: processor 1906]
create communication interface channels for receiving patient-related data from the transmission platform, ([0068] “the interface engine 230 contains channels or pipes 232, which communicate with the EMR system 104, and contain operational instructions to access, parse and update information transacted with the EMR system 104 and other third party systems” where channels are created to receive patient data)
receive, through the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from the transmission platform, ([0066] The integration server 106 is configured with a third party interface engine 230 that allows, in conjunction with an integration application program 228, for the receiving, sending and separation of a variety of messages and message types to and from the EMR system 104 and other system 100 servers and components using a variety of standards and protocols” where the integration server is the transmission platform)
authenticate the message, ([0222] In step 2106 of method 2100, the user information is authenticated. For example, in a hospital setting, the information provided in this step could be the name of the patient along with visit/account number or medical record number.” where user information comprises a message over a communication system)
transmit the parsed patient-related data to one or more in-room devices, and ([0086] At this stage, it will be understood that the executable program 410 operating on the smart television 118 is configured to request information from the application server 108.” Where requesting information from the application server comprises transmitting patient related data to in-room devices)
configure a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform. ([0081] “Here, the system 100 includes various user, or endpoint, devices configured to allow end users (for example, patients, family members of patients, and healthcare institution personnel) to interact with and otherwise utilize the system 100.” Where the endpoint devices [i.e., in-room devices] are connected to the system [i.e. transmission platform])
Regarding claim 1, Fielder does not explicitly teach, as taught by Hoffer:
parse the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, ([0158] “FIG. 3C is a detailed flow diagram depicting a protocol to attain patient-specific data for identification or health data retrieval by using process mediation across external resources automatically whenever a requestor's service model, even one unrecognized by a mediator natively, will interoperate compatibly with at least one external provider's service model that is accessible to execute a query with adequate wireless security for the patient's abstract biometrics and health data” where the patient related data is processed [i.e., parsed] when attained from external resources [i.e., via a message] see also [0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate” where the messages in this system are authenticated)
wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system, ([0273] “Message 201 is then transformed and the message body decoded by program instructions of the access server 85 based on its internal logic to a query format and structured definition language (SDL), compatible with or native to the relevant access protocol and logic layer application (block 405)” where the message [i.e., the authenticated message] transforms [i.e., parsed] patient data to a query format [i.e., data objects] based on the SDL compatible with the relevant access protocol [i.e., having a format compatible with the system])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 2, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further caused to verify the patient-related data using an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system. [0132] In step 640 of method 600, the information contained in the facility EMR system 104 is continually updated based on information received from the integration program 228 operating on the integration server 106 (based on information received from other system 100 components including the application server 108) based on certain activities by the patient.” Where continuously updating patient related information determined in an application program interface is verifying the patient-related data in an EMR)
Regarding claim 3, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hoffer also teaches
wherein the communication interface channel is one or more of a TCP/IP channel, a web service channel, a REST channel, a SOAP channel, or web hooks channel. ([0219] “The schema-driven user interface, which comprises part of the BQR Mediator's composite application layer, for instance, typically can be harnessed by the access server, described below, because it helps to validate, reformulate, or redirect queries, or to identify a request as a high-risk channel flow request or a low risk channel flow request based on the nature of the remote wireless request. It may also help detect if the origination of request is over a … IP network… or a TCP layer” where the channel comprises an interface type of an IP network)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 4, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the parsing the patient data further comprises retrieving video-related data from the transmission platform using an application programming interface. ([0079] The system application program 306 is also configured to call, communicate with, or otherwise rely upon a streaming server 114. In this embodiment, the streaming server 114 is a virtual machine server configured to store video and other media content, tools to assist with the streaming of video content, as well as certain operational computer code 316, on one or more storage memory components” and [0091] It will be further understood that each of the system 100 components contains non-transient computer readable storage mediums, or other storage mediums, on which such components are capable of storing information including… application program interfaces (APIs)” where video media content is displayed via an API)
Regarding claim 5, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the data object comprises one or more of a patient identifier, a room number, or a bed location. ([0101] “a system user interface 406 is shown. Here, patient name and room information 502 is displayed, along with the day, date and time.” Where the user interface is displaying data objects)
Regarding claim 6, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hoffer also teaches:
wherein the patient-related data is authenticated using one or more of password-based authentication, multi-factor authentication, certificate-based authentication, or token-based authentication. ([0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 7, Fielder teaches:
A method for facilitating video conferencing comprising: ([0054] “FIG. 1, an embodiment of an electronic communications system 100 for the interactive sharing of information within a healthcare institution is shown.” Is a video conferencing system)
creating communication interface channels for receiving patient-related data from a transmission platform, ([0068] “the interface engine 230 contains channels or pipes 232, which communicate with the EMR system 104, and contain operational instructions to access, parse and update information transacted with the EMR system 104 and other third party systems” where channels are created to receive patient data)
receiving, through the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from the transmission platform, ([0066] The integration server 106 is configured with a third party interface engine 230 that allows, in conjunction with an integration application program 228, for the receiving, sending and separation of a variety of messages and message types to and from the EMR system 104 and other system 100 servers and components using a variety of standards and protocols” where the integration server is the transmission platform)
authenticating the message, ([0222] In step 2106 of method 2100, the user information is authenticated. For example, in a hospital setting, the information provided in this step could be the name of the patient along with visit/account number or medical record number.” where user information comprises a message over a communication system)
transmitting the parsed patient-related data to one or more in-room devices, ([0086] At this stage, it will be understood that the executable program 410 operating on the smart television 118 is configured to request information from the application server 108.” Where requesting information from the application server is transmitting patient related data to in-room devices)
and configuring a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform. ([0081] “Here, the system 100 includes various user, or endpoint, devices configured to allow end users (for example, patients, family members of patients, and healthcare institution personnel) to interact with and otherwise utilize the system 100.” Where the endpoint devices [i.e., in-room devices] are connected to the system [i.e. transmission platform])
Regarding claim 7, Fielder does not explicitly teach, as taught by Hoffer:
parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, ([0158] “FIG. 3C is a detailed flow diagram depicting a protocol to attain patient-specific data for identification or health data retrieval by using process mediation across external resources automatically whenever a requestor's service model, even one unrecognized by a mediator natively, will interoperate compatibly with at least one external provider's service model that is accessible to execute a query with adequate wireless security for the patient's abstract biometrics and health data” where the patient related data is processed [i.e., parsed] when attained from external resources [i.e., via a message] see also [0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate” where the messages in this system are authenticated)
wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system, ([0273] Message 201 is then transformed and the message body decoded by program instructions of the access server 85 based on its internal logic to a query format and structured definition language (SDL), compatible with or native to the relevant access protocol and logic layer application (block 405)” where the message [i.e., the authenticated message] transforms [i.e., parsed] patient data to a query format [i.e., data objects] based on the SDL compatible with the relevant access protocol [i.e., having a format compatible with the system])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 8, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Fielder also teaches:
further comprising verifying the patient-related data using an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system. [0132] In step 640 of method 600, the information contained in the facility EMR system 104 is continually updated based on information received from the integration program 228 operating on the integration server 106 (based on information received from other system 100 components including the application server 108) based on certain activities by the patient.” Where continuously updating patient related information determined in an application program interface is verifying the patient-related data in an EMR)
Regarding claim 9, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Hoffer also teaches:
wherein the communication interface channel is one or more of a TCP/IP channel, a web service channel, a REST channel, a SOAP channel, or web hooks channel. ([0219] “The schema-driven user interface, which comprises part of the BQR Mediator's composite application layer, for instance, typically can be harnessed by the access server, described below, because it helps to validate, reformulate, or redirect queries, or to identify a request as a high-risk channel flow request or a low risk channel flow request based on the nature of the remote wireless request. It may also help detect if the origination of request is over a … IP network… or a TCP layer” where the channel comprises an interface type of an IP network)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 10, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the parsing the patient data further comprises: retrieving video-related data from the transmission platform using an application programming interface. ([0079] The system application program 306 is also configured to call, communicate with, or otherwise rely upon a streaming server 114. In this embodiment, the streaming server 114 is a virtual machine server configured to store video and other media content, tools to assist with the streaming of video content, as well as certain operational computer code 316, on one or more storage memory components” and [0091] It will be further understood that each of the system 100 components contains non-transient computer readable storage mediums, or other storage mediums, on which such components are capable of storing information including… application program interfaces (APis)” where video media content is displayed via an API)
Regarding claim 11, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the data object comprises one or more of a patient identifier, a room number, or a bed location. ([0101] “a system user interface 406 is shown. Here, patient name and room information 502 is displayed, along with the day, date and time.” Where the user interface is displaying data objects)
Regarding claim 12, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Hoffer also teaches:
wherein the patient-related data is authenticated using one or more of password-based authentication, multi-factor authentication, certificate-based authentication, or token-based authentication. ([0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 16, Fielder teaches:
A method for normalizing patient-related data comprising: ([0054] “FIG. 1, an embodiment of an electronic communications system 100 for the interactive sharing of information within a healthcare institution is shown.” Is a video conferencing system)
creating communication interface channels for receiving patient-related data from a transmission platform, ([0068] “the interface engine 230 contains channels or pipes 232, which communicate with the EMR system 104, and contain operational instructions to access, parse and update information transacted with the EMR system 104 and other third party systems” where channels are created to receive patient data)
receiving, from the communication interface channel, a message containing patient-related data from the transmission platform, ([0066] The integration server 106 is configured with a third party interface engine 230 that allows, in conjunction with an integration application program 228, for the receiving, sending and separation of a variety of messages and message types to and from the EMR system 104 and other system 100 servers and components using a variety of standards and protocols” where the integration server is the transmission platform)
authenticating the message, ([0222] In step 2106 of method 2100, the user information is authenticated. For example, in a hospital setting, the information provided in this step could be the name of the patient along with visit/account number or medical record number.” where user information comprises a message over a communication system)
Regarding claim 16, Fielder does not explicitly teach, as taught by Hoffer:
and parsing the patient-related data contained in the authenticated message, ([0158] “FIG. 3C is a detailed flow diagram depicting a protocol to attain patient-specific data for identification or health data retrieval by using process mediation across external resources automatically whenever a requestor's service model, even one unrecognized by a mediator natively, will interoperate compatibly with at least one external provider's service model that is accessible to execute a query with adequate wireless security for the patient's abstract biometrics and health data” where the patient related data is processed [i.e., parsed] when attained from external resources [i.e., via a message] see also [0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate” where the messages in this system are authenticated)
wherein the parsing includes converting the patient-related data into one or more data objects having a format compatible with the system, ([0273] Message 201 is then transformed and the message body decoded by program instructions of the access server 85 based on its internal logic to a query format and structured definition language (SDL), compatible with or native to the relevant access protocol and logic layer application (block 405)” where the message [i.e., the authenticated message] transforms [i.e., parsed] patient data to a query format [i.e., data objects] based on the SDL compatible with the relevant access protocol [i.e., having a format compatible with the system])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 17, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Hoffer also teaches:
wherein the communication interface channel is one or more of a TCP/IP channel, a web service channel, a REST channel, a SOAP channel, or web hooks channel. ([0219] “The schema-driven user interface, which comprises part of the BQR Mediator's composite application layer, for instance, typically can be harnessed by the access server, described below, because it helps to validate, reformulate, or redirect queries, or to identify a request as a high-risk channel flow request or a low risk channel flow request based on the nature of the remote wireless request. It may also help detect if the origination of request is over a … IP network… or a TCP layer” where the channel comprises an interface type of an IP network)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Regarding claim 18, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the parsing the patient data further comprises retrieving video-related data from the transmission platform using an application programming interface. ([0079] The system application program 306 is also configured to call, communicate with, or otherwise rely upon a streaming server 114. In this embodiment, the streaming server 114 is a virtual machine server configured to store video and other media content, tools to assist with the streaming of video content, as well as certain operational computer code 316, on one or more storage memory components” and [0091] It will be further understood that each of the system 100 components contains non-transient computer readable storage mediums, or other storage mediums, on which such components are capable of storing information including… application program interfaces (APis)” where video media content is displayed via an API)
Regarding claim 19, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Fielder also teaches:
wherein the data object comprises one or more of a patient identifier, a room number, a bed location. ([0101] “a system user interface 406 is shown. Here, patient name and room information 502 is displayed, along with the day, date and time.” Where the user interface is displaying data objects)
Regarding claim 20, Fielder-Hoffer teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Hoffer also teaches:
wherein the patient-related data is authenticated using one or more of password-based authentication, multi-factor authentication, certificate-based authentication, or token-based authentication. ([0195] “An authentication module may, for instance, simply extract that relevant data from message header sequences to issue or log an authentication certificate.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fielder with the teachings of Hof, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly teaching token-based authentication when creating TCP/IP channels for transferring patient information. This would have increased the safety of distributing sensitive patient information. Hoffer is adaptable to Fielder as both inventions process patient-related information for hospitals. Fielder would have found Hoffer’s teaching of [0142] “there has been inadequate attention paid to satisfying the urgent needs of EMRs seeking data from remote facilities or locations, often when time is routinely a true matter of life or death” to improve the consistency of EMR data so as to reduce risk of technological errors during acute patient events.
Response to Arguments
Examiner receives Applicant’s arguments with thanks and will respond to the arguments in the order they were presented.
Regarding page 6-7, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are technical in nature and improve the functioning of a computer in a technical way. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim uses a general-purpose servers and devices (see Spec. Para. [0055]). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer components that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate slower and less efficiently through the implementation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer, a practical application is not present.
Regarding page 6-7, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the steps on claim 1 cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner submits that the abstract idea was not characterized as being directed to a mental process. The claimed invention was characterized as falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity. Furthermore, if the material was directed towards a mental process, Examiner also respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states that a claimed invention is directed to a mental process if the identified claim elements contain limitations that the human mind is equipped to perform. Abstract ideas that have been held to be practically performable in the human mind include collection/analysis of data and collection/comparison of data. The Examiner submits that Applicant’s claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and the Applicant has not identified how the broadest reasonable interpretation of authenticating the message cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For instance, the human mind can use various transmission platforms to confirm the validity of a message based on the structure and source of a user. Because the identified features of the claim can be practically performed by a human, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding pages 7-8, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention overcomes problems with the state of the art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 healthcare systems. The problem of healthcare providers requiring more time to disinfect wheels when using multiple third party services was not a problem cause by the server, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a server is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a management problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Regarding page 8, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant directs Examiner towards two examples of limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind include detecting suspicious activity using network monitors along with using a specific data encryption method that contains several-step manipulation of data. MPEP 2106.04 (C) states that
“In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s scope of claims do not encompass the detailed technological solutions provided in the examples cited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). These examples are
directed towards specific monitoring and encryption techniques and are not recited in the existing claims. Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Regarding page 8, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and include the most recent guidance with the interpretation of the current subject matter eligibility as it applies.
Regarding page 9, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant recites that “configuring a connection between the in-room device and the transmission platform” does not recite a mental process. Applicant correctly categorizes this step as not reciting mental processes because the previous analysis directed this step to insignificant extra-solution activity rather than abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection as set forth.
Regarding pages 9-10, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that configuring a connection significantly advances the integration of communications platforms into the controlled and secured hardware and software settings of an institution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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) As mentioned previously, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the healthcare systems. Furthermore, if Applicant were to indicate a technological problem present, there is no nexus between the argued problem and the argued solution because there is no indication that the claimed invention actually solves a technical problem. If the Applicant has identified that there is a technical problem relating to significant advancements in integrating video communication platforms in a technical manner by securing hardware and software settings, this argument should indicate that the claim actually solves this problem. The claim does not define what security measures must or must not contain and thus the claim may actually provide more security. Because the claim does not explicitly solve a technical problem, a practical application is not present.
Regarding page 9, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a transformation and indicates that an additional element may integrate the exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. MPEP 2106.05(c) thereafter describes that a transformation is present where a physical object or substance is transformed to a different state or thing. Notably, the mere manipulation of data has been deemed not to be a transformation within the meaning of the term “transformation.” Because no transformation is present in Applicant’s claimed invention, a practical application is not present.
Regarding pages 10-11, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art Fielder mixes and matches elements of Fielder when rejecting the claims because the system application program and integration server are both attributed to the transmission platform. MPEP 2111.01 states that “claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the transmission platform can be understood to comprise both aspects of an integration server and application program. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand integrating various modular components of software applications may provide a benefit to this system, as depicted in Applicant’s Figure 20 that depicts many icons performing various tasks in the mobile application program. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection that Fielder in view of Hoffer teaches the claims as written.
Regarding pages 10-11, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the smart TV requesting information from the application server in response to commands and then receiving information is not transmitting parsed patient-related data into in-room devices. MPEP 2111.01 indicates that “the claims must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification”. MPEP continues to state that “ ‘Plain Meaning’ refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Applicant indicates the transmission of patient related data with Fielder’s paragraph [0086] from a server to a smart TV but argues that Fielder does not explain how the patient information is transmitted. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand standardized data transfer techniques adopted by HIPAA and FHIR to know how the transfer of information occurs between network devices. Fielder does indicate that the information is transmitted in paragraphs [0086] and thus would not need further explanation 0to understand how this information is transferred. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection under Fielder in view of Hoffer.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found on PTO-892 of the prior office action dated July 24th, 2025.
Fielder et al. (US20180137932) discloses a system that teaches a system for communicating, controlling an interactive sharing of medical information related to a patient’s medical condition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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 at (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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights