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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 9-14, and 16 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 01/30/2026.
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, 9-14, and 16 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 9-14, and 16 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claim 1, the limitations of extract a plurality of digital twin hospitals that perform virtual medical consultation for the user among a plurality of digital twin hospitals based on the DTH selection condition or medical-related information and generate analysis information based on the virtual medical consultation information acquired from the extracted digital twin hospitals, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Extracting a plurality of digital twin hospitals that perform virtual medical consultation for the user among a plurality of digital twin hospitals based on the DTH selection condition or medical-related information is a step which selects the digital twin hospitals that match or meet particular criteria including performing virtual medical consultation for the user and the selection condition/medical-related information. Selection of a plurality of digital twin hospitals from among a plurality of digital twin hospitals can be performed using human mental observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Generating analysis information based on the virtual medical consultation is a concept performed including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a display, a communication interface, an input interface, and processing circuitry. The display, communication interface, input interface, and processing circuitry in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites disclose the medical-related information to the extracted digital twin hospitals, which is a step in which the processing circuitry transmits data to the digital twin hospitals. Transmitting data by the use of general purpose computers is the use of the computers in their ordinary capacity for tasks such as transmitting data, which as per MPEP 2106.05(f) amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recites the additional elements of receiving a digital twin hospital selection condition from a user, acquiring medical-related information of the user, acquiring virtual medical consultation information generated by a virtual medical consultation for a user from a digital twin hospital in a virtual space, which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of receiving a digital twin hospital selection, acquiring medical related information, and acquiring virtual medical consultation information is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. The claim also recites control the display to display one of (a) treatment methods in a descending order of number of answers provided, (b) plurality of extracted digital twin hospitals in descending order of treatment results, or (c) doctors of real hospitals corresponding to the digital twin hospitals, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because presenting information is mere data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). The claims also describe the virtual medical consultation as being performed based on information regarding a real hospital corresponding to the digital twin hospital and medical-related information of the user. This is descriptive of the information acquired and does not add functional limitations to the claim. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a display, a communication interface, an input interface, and processing circuitry to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system including the display, communication interface, input interface, and processing circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as generic computer components by reciting a display configured by a liquid crystal display, a cathode ray tube display, or the like (Specification [0012]), use of a communication protocol to realize communication with other devices where the protocol type is not particularly limited (Specification [0014]), an input interface realized by a mouse, keyboard, touch panel, etc. (Specification [0013]), and a processor (Specification, [0017]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. The claims also include disclose the medical-related information to the extracted digital twin hospitals, which is transmission of data from the processing circuitry that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of receiving a digital twin hospital selection condition from a user, acquiring medical-related information of the user, and acquiring virtual medical consultation information generated by a virtual medical consultation for a user from a digital twin hospital in a virtual space, which are elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as presenting information, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added). The claims also include control the display to display one of (a) treatment methods in a descending order of number of answers provided, (b) plurality of extracted digital twin hospitals in descending order of treatment results, or (c) doctors of real hospitals corresponding to the digital twin hospitals which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include presenting information, which has been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). 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 the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 9-14, and 16 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 9 and 13 include disclosing the medical-related information to the extracted digital twin hospital permitted by the user which amounts to managing access to data which falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 10-12 include a description of the information which merely serves to further specify or limit the concepts of the independent claim and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 14 includes the user and/or digital twin hospital are anonymized which is a description and merely serves to further specify or limit the concepts of the independent claim and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 16 includes storage to store information. The storage is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The use of storage for storing information is the use of a general purpose computing component for its ordinary purpose which, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US 2019/0005200 A1), hereinafter Zimmerman, in view of Gounares et al. (US 2009/0259488 A1), hereinafter Gounares.
As per Claim 1, Zimmerman discloses
a display ([0114]);
a communication interface ([0112], see Fig. 15 communication interface);
an input interface ([0113]); and
processing circuitry ([0029])for:
acquire, via the communication interface, medical-related information of the user ([0032-0033] collected patient data sent to a digital twin, the patient data is collected in a real space/hospital and sent to a virtual space, where the collected information is medical data of the patient such as radiology, electronic medical data, etc.);
a plurality of digital twin hospitals that perform virtual medical consultation ([0062] machine/human diagnosis is leveraged to provide diagnosis/issues/propose solutions for a virtual patient, i.e. virtual medical consultation);
acquire, via the communication interface, virtual medical consultation information generated by virtual medical consultation for the user from the extracted digital twin hospitals, wherein the virtual medical consultation is performed, for each digital twin hospital, based on information regarding a real hospital corresponding to the digital twin hospital and medical-related information of the user ([0032-0033] collected patient data sent to a digital twin, the patient data is collected in a real space/hospital and sent to a virtual space, where the collected information is medical data of the patient such as radiology, electronic medical data, etc., [0035] digital twin comprises data reflecting the patient and medical data including norms, conditions, etc. from the health information system, [0072] information collected and verified in a patient interview, see Fig. 1 where the patient is in a real space, i.e. real hospital);
generate analysis information based on the virtual medical consultation information ([0036] using historical information, information on patient conditions, used to generate data to simulate diagnosis/treatment/maintenance information for the patient, [0072] information collected and verified in a patient interview); and
control, based on the analysis information, the display ([0038] practitioner can view a report which can include features, conditions, trends, etc. of the digital twin, [0077] visualization of patient information)
However, Zimmerman may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Gounares: the input interface ([0113]) is configured to receive a digital twin hospital selection condition from a user ([0047-0048] criteria supplied to the system by the patient, [0027] interface for receiving input such as patient symptoms to be used to match with physicians);
extract a plurality of digital twin hospitals for the user among a plurality of digital twin hospitals set up in a virtual space based on the DTH selection condition and/or the medical-related information ([0022] automated system of matching physicians or hospitals with patients based on criteria entered/received such as expertise or area of medicine and patient medical information such as medical problem, [0048] identify any entity/medical personnel who satisfy patient supplied criteria, [0049] where the system is implemented to enable modelling of real-world entity based on the real entity characteristics/data, Examiner interprets this to describe the doctors/hospitals represented as digital twin entities);
disclose the medical-related information to the extracted digital twin hospitals ([0026] individuals authorize selected medical practitioners or hospitals to access patient personal/medical data);
medical information is acquired from a plurality of the digital twin hospitals ([0027] interface component to receive input from a multitude of sources which includes physician information, possible treatment options, probable outcomes);
to (a) display treatment methods proposed by the extracted digital twin hospitals in a descending order of a number of answers provided by the extracted DTHs; (b) display the plurality of extracted digital twin hospitals in a descending order of treatment results for a certain treatment method proposed by the plurality of digital twin hospitals ([0041] user interface to present to the user, [0048] generate a report including identified medical personnel, i.e. those who meet criteria of treating particular disease, the list of medical personnel ranked in order of successful outcomes or most efficacious treatment, [0022] automated system of matching physicians or hospitals with patients, Examiner interprets the digital twin to include a hospital); and/or (c) display doctors belonging to real hospitals corresponding to the plurality of digital twin hospitals in a comparable manner (Examiner notes that only one of the above listed displays is required by the claim language which states and/or with regard to the options).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to combine the known concept of acquiring matching a patient with a plurality of digital twin hospitals based on patient input criteria and displaying the plurality of providers based on success of recommended treatments from Gounares with the generating and analyzing patient digital twin data to present to a user from Zimmerman in order to provide a way to find qualified healthcare professionals to treat a patient condition or problem in the age of vast information with regard to hospitals, physicians, and treatment possibilities (Gounares [0002-0003]).
As per Claim 10, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Zimmerman also teaches the medical-related information includes at least one of a main complaint, medical information, biological information, and behavior information of the user ([0069-0071] collected patient information to generate the digital twin includes medical data such as fitness/activity data, blood sugar test data, image data, medical record data, prescription history).
As per Claim 12, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Zimmerman also teaches the virtual medical consultation information includes a diagnosis result by the virtual medical consultation (see Fig. 13/[0079] diagnosis recommendation for the digital twin) and information regarding medical service capable of being provided by a real hospital corresponding to the digital twin hospital ([0145] different healthcare entities will provide different treatments, collecting data on workflow for the healthcare entity including capabilities).
As per Claim 13, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Zimmerman also teaches the processing circuitry is further configured not to disclose virtual medical consultation information acquired from a certain digital twin hospital to another digital twin hospital ([0103] healthcare institutions mask patient identifying information, [0130] system may enable sharing of information via web applications to another healthcare entity).
As per Claim 14, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Zimmerman also teaches the user and/or the digital twin hospital are anonymized ([0103] patient information can be stripped or masked).
As per Claim 16, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Zimmerman also teaches a storage to store the medical-related information ([0006-0007] memory for storing digital twin data including medical record data).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 2019/0005200 A1), in view of Gounares (US 2009/0259488 A1), in view of Mason et al. (US 2021/0142898 A1), hereinafter Mason.
As per Claim 9, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. However, Zimmerman and Gounares may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Mason: the processing circuitry is further configured to simultaneously disclose the medical-related information to the plurality of extracted digital twin hospitals ([0043] transmitting patient information for display to a subset of healthcare providers indicated by the person, [0003] where the healthcare providers are those participating in a telemedicine session, [0027] the healthcare provider may be a virtual assistant in a virtual or augmented reality, which Examiner interprets to be a digital provider/hospital).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to combine the known concept of providing medical data to a plurality of authorized persons from Mason with the generating and analyzing patient digital twin data for multiple hospitals from Zimmerman and Gounares in order to allow two or more providers to provide a telemedicine session to a patient (Mason [0033]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 2019/0005200 A1), in view of Gounares (US 2009/0259488 A1), in view of Gu (KR20240144574A), hereinafter Gu.
As per Claim 11, Zimmerman and Gounares discloses the limitations of Claim 1. However, Zimmerman and Gounares may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Gu: the information regarding a real hospital includes information regarding medical resources owned by the hospital ([0036] virtual space is built in a virtual space based on real space of the facility, [0050] virtual space configured to enable avatar based on integration of real world, [0071] where digital twin implements the real world objects or environment in the virtual world, where resources are the real world objects).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to combine the known concept of acquiring hospital data from a plurality of digital twin medical providers as hospitals from Gu with the generating and analyzing patient digital twin data to present to a user from Zimmerman and Gounares in order to enable real-time interaction with users to provide effective prediction from real life patient data (Gu [0002],[0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 01/30/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of 10/30/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 01/30/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 9-14, and 16 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gounares.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, filed 01/30/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 9-14, and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims of the present application are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims include features that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant points to the element of including acquire virtual medical consultation information generated by a virtual medical consultation for a user from digital twin hospitals, wherein the virtual medical consultation is performed based on information regarding a real hospital, corresponding to the digital twin hospital and medical related information of the user as not being able to be performed mentally. Examiner notes that acquiring virtual medical consultation information is not included as part of the abstract idea above. This step is an additional element which is found to be mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. This is found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional because acquiring information from the extracted digital twin hospitals is receiving/transmitting data which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant argues that the present claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim provides a concrete technical implementation including processing circuitry that acquires virtual medical consultation information form a plurality of extracted digital twin hospitals, generates analysis information based on the consultation information, and controls a display based on the analysis information for the intended purpose of performing comparative presentation operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees that any of the previously mentioned elements provides a technical improvement or any integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of processing circuitry to acquire information from digital twin hospitals is the use of general purpose computers for their ordinary purpose of receiving/transmitting data, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The processing circuitry is a general purpose computer because it is not limited beyond the high-level of generality as recited in the claims. The step of generating analysis information is part of the abstract idea, as a mental process, and therefore cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Control the display to display particular information is merely a step of displaying information on a known computer component, which amounts to mere data outputting. This is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional similar to presenting offers, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, these steps do not provide a technical improvement and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claim specifies how the display is controlled. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites controlling the display based on the analysis information so as to display one of three options of information. This just specifies what information is to be displayed and in what order. This still amounts to the function of displaying information, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as described above.
Applicant argues that the use of virtual medical consultation results obtained from multiple DTHs to generate analysis information and then uses that analysis information to control the system output in a defined, technical manner integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The generated analysis information is used merely to determine what information is to be displayed. This does not provide any technical solution or improvement in the claims. The step of “control the display” acts only to display information. There are no technical improvements to the manner in which data would be displayed recited. Describing the information which is to be displayed and in what order does not provide a technical aspect to the manner of displaying data. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as directed to an abstract idea which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682