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 the Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently pending. Claim 11 is canceled in the Claims filed on June 2, 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 1-3 and 5-10 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 and 5-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are drawn to an apparatus for providing a consultation service to a patient, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: An apparatus for providing a telemedicine service, the apparatus comprising:
a communication interface; and
a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to:
start a video connection between a health care provider client and a patient client by admitting the patient client into a virtual consultation room when the patient client associated with a patient terminal completes medical consultation registration and requests access to the virtual consultation room;
process a video connection of the health care provider client associated with a health care provider terminal when the patient client is connected to the virtual consultation room; and
evaluate readiness of the patient client associated with the patient terminal to begin the telemedicine service by determining, through face recognition, whether a face staring at a camera of the patient terminal is recognized and providing to the health care provider terminal a value between 0 and 1, wherein a value closer to 1 indicates that the face is recognized and wherein a predetermined threshold value for face recognition is set and when the value between 0 and 1 is less than the predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time, a request to stare at a screen is provided to a patient through the patient client to allow capture of the patient's face using the camera of the patient terminal,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
when a plurality of different patient clients simultaneously maintains a connection to the virtual consultation room and the value between 0 and 1 of each of the plurality of different patient clients is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, evaluate consultation readiness of each of the plurality of different patient clients based on the value between 0 and 1, and identify a patient client among the plurality of different patient clients as ready first based on a result of the evaluation;
communicate with an internal information processing system of a hospital through the communication interface to obtain information of patients waiting in the hospital;
provide the result of the evaluation and the information of the patients waiting in the hospital to the health care provider client, such that the patients waiting for telemedicine consultations are mixed with the patients waiting in the hospital; and
when the health care provider client starts a consultation, process the video connection of the health care provider client with the patient client identified as ready first.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, starting a video connection between a health care provider and a patient after the patient completes registration and requests the consultation, evaluating the readiness of a plurality of patients waiting for a consultation based on facial recognition/analysis of the patients, obtaining information of the patients waiting at a hospital, providing the results of the evaluation of the plurality of patients waiting for a consultation and the information for the patients at the hospital to a health care provider, and starting the video connection between the health care provider and the patient identified as ready first recite following rules or instructions to conduct a consultation between people (i.e. the provider and the patient)), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 include other limitations, for example Claims 2-3 recite limitations pertaining to maintaining the connection between the patient and provider, Claim 5 recites displaying event data to the provider, Claim 6 recites types of events, Claim 7 recites requesting information from the patient, Claim 8 recites determining the readiness of a patient for the consultation, and Claims 9-10 recite providing an estimated wait time for the patient, 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, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Hence Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the communication interface, the processor, the patient and provider clients, the provider terminal, the camera, the consultation room being virtual) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the communication interface, the processor, the patient and provider clients, the provider terminal, and the camera, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pg. 8, lines 14-34 of the as-filed Specification, and 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 reciting that the consultation room is a virtual consultation room, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of telemedicine, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the various types of connections and communication interfaces recited in dependent Claims 2-3), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data requested from the patient recited in dependent Claim 7), 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.
Hence Claims 1-3 and 5-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does 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 communication interface, the processor, the patient and provider clients, the provider terminal, the camera, the consultation room being virtual), 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 additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Pg. 8, lines 14-34 of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the communication interface, the processor, the patient and provider clients, and the provider terminal) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives patient registration data, utilizes the data to initiate a video connection, and transmits the video data over a network, e.g. see pg. 9, lines 15-20 and pg. 10, lines 1-9 of the as-filed Specification; and/or
Performing repetitive calculations, e.g. see Parker v. Flook, and/or Bancorp Services v. Sun Life – similarly, the additional elements recite performing basic calculations (i.e. determining the value between 0 and 1 for the facial recognition, and evaluating whether the value is closer to 0 or 1) and does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the various types of connections and communication interfaces recited in dependent Claims 2-3), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data re quested from the patient recited in dependent Claim 7), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-3 and 5-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
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 and 5-10 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Arshad (US 2017/0011179) teaches a system comprising a camera, a patient device, a physician device, and a server, all of which are connected over a network such as the Internet. Furthermore, Arshad teaches enabling a patient to register with the system and enabling the patient to schedule an appointment with a provider or care team member after registration, wherein the appointment may comprise rendering video for a video conference. Additionally, Arshad teaches employing facial recognition software in order to authenticate users. However, Arshad does not teach performing the facial recognition to determine the readiness of the patient to begin the telemedicine service. Additionally, Arshad does not teach determining a value between 0 and 1 indicating whether the patient’s face is recognized according to a predetermined threshold for the value, and further does not teach providing the value to the health care provider. Furthermore, Arshad does not teach determining that the value is less than the predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time, and in response requesting the patient to stare at a screen to enable the patient client to capture the patient’s face.
Sanford (US 2016/0217264) teaches a system including a camera that automatically identifies and aims at a patient, wherein the camera may be used to conduct a conference with a healthcare provider. However, Sanford does not teach any type of facial recognition, and further does not teach performing the facial recognition to determine the readiness of the patient to begin the telemedicine service, and specifically does not teach determining a value between 0 and 1 indicating whether the patient’s face is recognized according to a predetermined threshold for the value, and further does not teach providing the value to the health care provider. Furthermore, Sanford does not teach determining that the value is less than the predetermined threshold for a predetermined period of time, and in response requesting the patient to stare at a screen to enable the patient client to capture the patient’s face
Mishra (US 2012/0144320) teaches a videoconferencing system that monitors when users have left the screen by utilizing face recognition and tracking. The system further resumes a meeting when it determines that a minimum number of the proper participants are present for a minimum time threshold and may issue a message asking if a user is ready to resume the meeting. However, Mishra does not teach determining a value between 0 and 1 indicating whether the patient’s face is recognized according to a predetermined threshold for the value, and further does not teach providing the value to the health care provider. Additionally, Mishra does not teach determining whether a user is ready to begin the session using a value between 0 and 1 indicative of whether the face is recognized and comparing the value to a threshold, but instead utilizes the facial recognition to effectively authenticate that the identity of a returning user matches the identity of the user who has left the meeting. Additionally, the time threshold of Mishra is used to determine whether to issue the query about resuming the meeting, but Mishra does not teach that the time threshold is for a predetermined period of time for the value being less than the value threshold.
McDuff (US 2017/0109571) teaches a system for streaming video between users, for example as part of a video conference, wherein the system obtains face video of a user and performs an emotion classification of the user including identifying probabilities of one or more emotions of the user including focusing, engagement, attention, and/or boredom. However, McDuff does not teach providing the probability to a health care provider. Additionally, McDuff does not teach determining the probability, comparing the probability to a threshold, comparing the probability against a time threshold, and then issuing a request to the patient to stare at the screen when the probability is below the threshold for a predetermined period of time.
Heins (US 2019/0349212) teaches a video conferencing system that utilizes known facial recognition methods to identify participants’ physical markers to derive numerical values such as initial participation or attention level, which are ultimately used to determine the effectiveness of the video conference. However, Heins does not teach determining a value between 0 and 1 indicating whether a participant’s face is recognized according to a predetermined threshold for the value, and further does not teach providing the value to a health care provider. Additionally, Heins does not teach determining whether a user is ready to begin the session using a value between 0 and 1 indicative of whether the face is recognized and comparing the value to a threshold, but instead utilizes the facial recognition during the meeting to later measure the effectiveness of the meeting itself. Additionally, Heins does not teach determining whether the value has been less than the threshold for a predetermined period of time and in response requesting the participant stare at the screen.
Trobinger ("A Dual Doctor-Patient Twin Paradigm for Transparent Remote Examination, Diagnosis, and Rehabilitation," 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)) teaches a telemedicine system that includes facial expression analysis as part of a videoconference. However, Trobinger teaches utilizing the facial expression analysis to determine pain cues of the patient, and not to evaluate the readiness of the patient to begin the telemedicine session. Furthermore, Trobinger does not teach determining a value indicative of the readiness of the patient to begin the telemedicine session, where the value is between 0 and 1, and wherein the value is compared to a threshold. Additionally, Trobinger does not teach determining whether the value has been below the threshold for a predetermined period of time, and in response requesting the patient stare at the screen.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the present invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements of the present invention are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claim 1-3 and 5-10 is not considered to be disclosed by and/or obvious in view of the inventions of the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea, specifically because the claims recite “a specific computer-vision pipeline” that requires operations that cannot reasonably be performed mentally – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner has not asserted that the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of a mental process, and hence any arguments pertaining to the feasibility of any operations being performed mentally is immaterial to the determination of subject matter eligibility.
Furthermore, regarding parallels Applicant intends to draw between the present claimed invention and other inventions from unrelated issued patents, Examiner notes that every patent stands on its own merits and is presumed to be valid, e.g. see 35 U.S.C. 282, and additionally, with some very specific exceptions, Examiners are prohibited from expressing any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent, e.g. see MPEP 1701. The claimed invention of the present application does not meet any of the exceptions listed in MPEP 1701, and hence Examiner will refrain from commenting on the substance of the patents cited by Applicant. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the patented inventions differ substantively from the present claimed invention, and Examiner further notes that the quotations Applicant relies upon from the Notices of Allowances of said patents do not reflect the entirety of Examiner’s rationale, and there is additional context for Examiner’s rationale in the cited Notice of Allowances that are not captured by the quotations.
Regarding the Example 39 of the USPTO-issued examples, Examiner notes that the claim language of Example 39 recites specific image processing steps including, but not limited to, “applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image including mirroring, rotating smoothing, or contrast reduction to create modified set of digital facial images,” “creating a first training set,” “training the neural network…using the first training set,” “creating a second training set,” and “training the neural network…using the second training set.” That is, the invention of Example 39 explicitly recites a particular method for generating training data for a neural network, and specifically training the neural network using the generated training data. In contrast, the present claim language merely recites “[evaluating] readiness of the patient client…by determining…whether a face staring at a camera of the patient terminal is recognized and providing to the health care provider terminal a value between 0 and 1.” That is, the present claim language does not claim any type of neural network, any type of training of a neural network, and further does not claim any specific operations explaining how the value between 0 and 1 is actually determined. Hence, the present claim language is distinguished from the invention of Example 39.
Additionally, regarding the determination of whether or not the claimed invention addresses a technological problem, pg. 1, lines 26-33 of the as-filed Specification discloses the following (emphasis added):
Traditional services typically involve a health care provider contacting a patient after an appointment is scheduled, but without a precise appointment time. In such a case, the health care provider needs to wait for the patient to connect with health care provider, and when the patient misses the connection attempt, the health care provider has to repeatedly try to reconnect with the patient. This may also be problematic for the patient, as the patient may receive repeated contact attempts at unexpected times. By preventing these inconveniences and inefficiencies, telemedicine may proceed smoothly for both parties.
Hence, the as-filed Specification discloses that the present invention is intended to address the inconvenience/inefficiency (i.e. problem) of a health care provider needing to wait for a patient. The problem of a provider needing to wait for a patient to be ready for a consultation is not a technological problem because this problem has existed since long before the advent of any type of computer technology. Furthermore, even expanding this to include the practice of telemedicine, the telemedicine aspect of the problem merely applies the abstract idea on generic computing structure, at least because the Claims do not claim any specifics regarding how the system calculates the value between 0 and 1. That is, a provider needing to wait for a patient to connect to a teleconsultation session still nonetheless represents a problem of the provider needing for the patient to be ready for the consultation, but for the recitation of the consultation being conducted remotely.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo, that the claimed invention addresses the problem of inefficient and more costly delivery of healthcare services, these problems are not technological problems because, similar to the problem of forcing physicians to wait for patients to be ready, these problems have existed since long before the advent of any technology required for telemedicine. That is, the problem of “a patient being unprepared for a physician consultation” resulting in lost time and/or revenue is not a problem inherent to telemedicine but instead is a problem of patient consultations as a whole that has existed since before the advent of computer technology. Moreover, improving the patient consultation process such that it is now more efficient and/or less costly represent a commercial/business improvement rather than a technological improvement and/or an improvement to the abstract idea itself (i.e. a certain method of organizing the human activity of a patient-physician consultation), and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). That is, the claimed invention does not address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks and/or telemedicine and/or image/video analysis, but instead addresses the problems of expense and inefficiency in connection with a patient consultation.
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application, specifically because it recites technological improvements to the functioning of a telemedicine system – Examiner disagrees.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention results in “improved consultation efficiency” for a hospital or health care provider, this does not represent a technological improvement because this does not improve the functioning of the computer itself, but at most improves the suitability of the use of a computer for a specific use, wherein the intended use of the computer is the execution of an abstract idea, namely a certain method of organizing human activities.
Regarding Enfish, as Applicants note, the invention of Enfish recited a self-referential table that achieved the improvements of increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. In contrast, the claimed invention does not recite a unique data structure or table that achieves similar types of improvements in the functioning of the computer and/or database. Hence, the claimed invention is distinguished
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it recites a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of elements, achieving improvements similar to those achieved by DDR Holdings and Amdocs, and because the claim recites a specific manner of carrying out the improvement – Examiner disagrees.
Regarding DDR Holdings, the improvement achieved by the invention of DDR Holdings was a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a). In contrast, the claimed invention does not recite the construction of any type of web page and/or limitations pertaining to the regulation of Internet traffic, and hence is distinguished from the invention of DDR Holdings.
Regarding Amdocs, the improvement achieved by the invention of Amdocs was reducing network congestion while generating networking accounting data records via a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a). In contrast, as stated above, the claimed invention does not recite the regulation of network traffic, and further does not generate any type of accounting data records. Hence, the claimed invention is distinguished from the invention of Amdocs.
Regarding the specificity of the claimed limitations, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Additionally, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim will be eligible, and preemption is not a stand-alone test for patentability, but rather is inherent in the two-part Alice/Mayo framework, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. That is, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention recites a specific configuration for an abstract idea, a narrow abstract idea nonetheless recites an abstract idea, and the broadness/narrowness of the abstract idea is not, by itself, dispositive of the eligibility of the claim. Furthermore, as shown above, Examiner has provided evidence demonstrating that the present invention is directed towards at least one court-identified abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and further that the additional elements of the present invention (i.e. any elements not identified as part of the abstract idea) do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and hence has addressed any concerns arising from preemption.
Applicant additionally alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it recites significantly more than the abstract idea, specifically because the limitations are not anticipated by or obvious in view of the prior art – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that “the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter,” and specifically, a finding of a lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that claimed invention is therefore patent eligible. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05I(I). Hence, the claimed invention is not rendered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 merely because there is no prior art that anticipates it and/or renders it obvious.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Chiang (US 2017/0323074) – teaches a telemedicine system that enables patients to indicate when they are ready for a virtual consultation.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights