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 5-11 are currently pending. Claim 11 is newly added in the Claims filed on January 20, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on December 15, 2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner.
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 5-11 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 5-11 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 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 camera;
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 the 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 the patient through the patient client to allow capture of the patient's face using the camera of the patient client, wherein the value between 0 and 1 assigned to the patient client may be employed in determining the patient client’s prioritization within a plurality of patients assigned values meeting the predetermined threshold.
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, and evaluating the readiness of a patient based on facial recognition/analysis of the patient is reasonably interpreted as 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 5-11 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, Claims 9-10 recite providing an estimated wait time for the patient, and Claim 11 recites adjusting an order of consultations based on the readiness of the patients, 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 5-11 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Hence Claims 1-3 and 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 5-11 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 January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it improves the functioning of the computer itself and/or any other technology or technical field in that it represents a technological solution to a technological problem, e.g. see pgs. 7-8 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Applicant contends that the claimed invention is not directed towards addressing the problem of a physician waiting for a patient to be ready. However, pg. 1, lines 26-33 of the as-filed Specification recites 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 explicitly 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. As stated in the Final Rejection mailed on November 25, 2025, 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. 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 using any suitable generic computing devices.
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).
Additionally, it has been held that conditional language does not narrow the claims because it may be omitted. According to the MPEP, “claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure,” e.g. see MPEP 2111.04. In this case, the newly amended claim limitations do not alter or change the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the newly amended claim limitations are not required by the claim. The newly amended claim limitations recite “wherein the value between 0 and 1 assigned to the patient client may be employed in determining the patient client’s prioritization within a plurality of patients assigned values meeting the predetermined threshold.” That is, the value between 0 and 1 “may be” used to determine the patient client’s prioritization, which includes the possibility that it may also not be used to determine the patient client’s prioritization.
Furthermore, even if this language were amended to recite that the value between 0 and 1 is employed in the determination, this would nonetheless represent an intended use or result. Statements of intended use raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in the claims, e.g. see MPEP 2103(I)(C). That is, the intent of the limitation does not change/add any functions to the claim itself, because instead of positively reciting a function (e.g. determining the patient client’s prioritization based on the value between 0 and 1 assigned to the patient client), the aforementioned language merely recites a result of an undisclosed limitation (i.e. the value between 0 and 1 is used in order to make the determination of the prioritization of the patient client).
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive for the reasons disclosed above. The rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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