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
In the amendment dated 13 January 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended; Claims 3, 4, 8, and 11-20 have been cancelled; Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 are pending.
Priority
This application does not claim priority to any other patent document and is thus afforded a priority date corresponding to the filing date of 02 June 2024.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 21-23 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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method and system for facilitating telemedicine service, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative)
receiving a first request from a user to register with a telemedicine service; authenticating the user using a user validation application configured to verify the user's identity; providing access to the user to the telemedicine service upon authentication; receiving a second request from the user for the telemedicine service and access to electronic health records; analyzing the second request; generating a response to the second request based on the analysis; transmitting the generated response; providing access to the user to the electronic health records upon authentication; connecting the user to a customer service representative if the user has additional questions; and sending an email to the customer service representative with a request to contact the user, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a server having program code (Claim 1) or combination of a storage device and one or more processors (Claim 21), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the server or storage device / processor(s), Claims 1 and 21 encompasses responding to patient requests for access to patient medical services, access to electronic health records, and interaction with a customer service representative, in the manner described in the identified abstract ideas, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of (Claim 1) a server having program code or (Claim 21) a storage device / processor combination that implements the corresponding identified abstract idea. The server and storage device / processor are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computers or components thereof) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) a communication network, (2) a client device, and (3) a chatbot. The (1) a communication network, (2) client device, and (3) chatbot generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (Claim 1) a server having program code or (Claim 21) a storage device / processor combination to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) a communication network, (2) a client device, and (3) a chatbot were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. For completeness, the Examiner notes that MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Further and for completeness, the Examiner notes that the prior art of record indicates that chatbots are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see, e.g., US2022/0229993 to Vu et al. at Para. 0028; US2020/0228470 to Koo et al. at Para. 0003; US2019/0142062 to Dayama et al. at Para. 0070). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 22, and 23 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2, 16 merely describe(s) the client device, which is an additional element and generally links under 2A2 and 2B.
Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) how authentication occurs, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6, 22 merely describe(s) receiving, presenting, providing, offering, connecting, and sending data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 23 merely describe(s) how subsequent information is provided, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) the additional information that is provided, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) what the chatbot is configured to do, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “a storage device configured to store program instructions; and one or more processors operably connected to a communication network and the storage device and configured to execute the program instructions to cause the system to: receive by a server computer… receive, by the server computer… using program code located on the server computer….” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the storage device / processor are part of the server or whether the storage device / processor are separately controlling the server. The Examiner assumes the are part of the server and suggests amening the claim to state that the system is a server having a storage device and one or more processors.
By virtue of their dependence from Claim 21, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 22 and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balram (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 20170098051) in view of White et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0187031) in view of Hoffman et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2018/0197160).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Balram teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval, comprising:
receiving by a server computer over a network a first request from a user to register with the telemedicine service, [Para. 0011 teaches a telemedicine system having a virtual doctor module (a chatbot). Para. 0027, 0029 teaches that a patient is registered with the telemedicine system based on a login request (a first request from a user). Para. 0031, 0049, 0059 teaches that this occurs via a web services server while Para. 0033 teaches that it occurs over a network.]
wherein the first request to register is received through a client device; [Para. 0029 teaches that the registration is received from a node. Para. 0036, 0043 teaches that the node is a computing device at the patient home (a client device).]
authenticating the user using a user validation application configured to verify the user's identity; [Para. 0030 teaches that and authorization token received and used to verify identity of user.]
providing access to the user to the telemedicine service upon authentication; [Para. 0030 teaches that the user is provided access to the web server and the telemedicine services including the virtual doctor module.]
receiving, by the server computer over the network, a second request from the user for the telemedicine service […], [Para. 0053, 0068 teaches an input (a second request) is received from a user (interpreted as the patient, see Para. 0027) to interact with the virtual doctor for remote patient treatment (a telemedicine service).]
[…];
connecting the user to a customer service representative if the user has additional questions; and [Para. 0044, 0070 teaches that the user is connected to live doctor (a customer service representative, which is a non-functional label) based on a triage determination by the virtual doctor.]
Regarding the “connecting” feature, the USPTO interprets claim limitations that contain “if, may, might, can, could, when, potentially, possibly” as optional language. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations since they can be omitted; “[c]laim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP 2111.04 & 2173.05(d) (see also In re Johnston, 435 F3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006)). Balram teaches the functionality of connecting a patient to another person. The condition precedent, however, is optional and the Examiner declines to that the option. The Examiner also notes that White teaches this feature at Para. 0135.
Balram may not explicitly teach
that the second request includes access to electronic health records,
wherein the second request is received through a chatbot application for facilitating the telemedicine service;
analyzing the second request using program code located on the server computer;
generating a response to the second request based on the analysis;
transmitting the generated response to the client device through the chatbot application;
providing access to the user to the electronic health records upon authentication;
sending an email […].
White at 0049, 0050, 0103, 0107, 0126-0130, Claim 1 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to receive a chatbot request from a patient related to patient’s EMR data and to provide the EMR data to the patient via the chatbot and email a provider
that the second request includes access to electronic health records, [White at Para. 0103, 0126 teaches receiving a patient request (the user input of Balram) that is triaged, where the response references sections of the patient data contained in the patient’s EMR. This appears to be consistent with the description of such a request at Spec. Para. 0042.]
wherein the second request is received through a chatbot application for facilitating the telemedicine service; [White at Para. 0049, 0050, 0126 teaches that a virtual assistant/chatbot (the virtual doctor of Balram) receives the request. White Para. 0050, 0107 teaches that the chatbot is an application on a personal mobile communication device of the patient such, as a smartphone.]
analyzing the second request using program code located on the server computer; [White at Para. 0126 teaches that the patient request is processed by the clinician server (the web services server of Balram).]
generating a response to the second request based on the analysis; [White at Para. 0126 teaches that a response action message is created.]
transmitting the generated response to the client device through the chatbot application; [White at Para. 0126-0130 teaches that the response action message is conveyed (transmitted) to the patient via the chatbot.]
providing access to the user to the electronic health records upon authentication; [White at Para. 0126 teaches that the EMR data is copied and included in the response message.]
sending an email […]. [White at Claim 1 teaches that the response action includes sending an email.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the virtual doctor / telemedicine system of Belram to receive a chatbot request from a patient related to patient’s EMR data and to provide the EMR data to the patient via the chatbot and email a provider as taught by White, with the motivation of “improv[ing] patient engagement and treatment compliance by ensuring that patient requests are handled in the most efficient and timely manner possible” (see White at Para. 0049).
Belram/White may not explicitly teach
sending an email to the customer service representative with a request to contact the user.
Hoffman at Para. 0031 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to send an email question to a customer service representative that is association with a user question
sending an email to the customer service representative with a request to contact the user. [Hoffman at Para. 0031 teaches that a consumer emails a question to a customer service representative if they have a specific question (a request of White).]
The Examiner notes that the Specification at Para. 0052 indicates that “connecting the user” and “sending an email” limitations are contingent on the customer service representative being available, rather than both limitations occurring. However, the claim is not worded this way and the Examiner has cited Hoffman for completeness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the virtual doctor / telemedicine system of Belram having the receipt of a chatbot request from a patient related to patient’s EMR data and to provision of the EMR data to the patient via the chatbot and email to a provider of White to send an email question to a customer service representative that is association with a user question as taught by Hoffman, with the motivation of improving efficiency (see Hoffman at Para. 0003).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Balram/White/Hoffman teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claim 1. Balram/White/Hoffman further teaches
wherein the client device is a computer or a mobile phone. [Balram at Para. 0036, 0043 teaches that the node is a computing device at the patient home (a computer). White Para. 0050, 0107 also teaches that the chatbot is an application on a personal mobile communication device of the patient such, as a smartphone.]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Balram/White/Hoffman teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claim 1. Balram/White/Hoffman further teaches
wherein the user is authenticated upon receiving […identifying data…]. [Balram at Para. 0030 teaches that the patient is authenticated upon receipt of identifying data.]
Balram/White/Hoffman may not teach that the received authentication data is first name, last name, date of birth, and social security number. However, the limitation claims information/labels that constitute nonfunctional descriptive information that is/are not functionally involved in the recited system. The function described by the system would be performed the same regardless of whether the claimed information/labels was substituted with nothing. Because the Balram teaches authentication of a patient based on identification data received from the patient, substituting the information/labels of the claimed invention for the information/labels of the prior art would be an obvious substitution of one known element for another, producing predictable results. Therefore, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the information/labels applied to the authentication data of the prior art with any other information/labels because the results would have been predictable. MPEP 2112.01, Section III (see also In re Ngai, Ex Parte Breslow). The Examiner notes that there is no claimed indication as to how the received data is used to authenticate the patient and thus the data is non-functional, descriptive information.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 21
Claim(s) 21 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1, thus Claim(s) 21 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 6, 78, 9, 10, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balram (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 20170098051) in view of White et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0187031) in view of Hoffman et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2018/0197160) in view of Hengerer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2018/0218338).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Balram/White/Hoffman teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claim 1. Balram/White/Hoffman further teaches
receiving, from the user, one or more user queries related to healthcare needs through the chatbot application; [White at Para. 0050, 0127-0134 teaches receiving questions/queries from the patient regarding their healthcare, such as their renal care.]
presenting predefined questions to the user for selection based on the user's current health issues or reason for seeking assistance; [White at Para. 0050, 0055 teaches that the response to a question can be a logical sequence of questions (predefined questions) and answer for resolving the patient queries.]
providing a response based on the selected predefined question; [White at Para. 0056, 0126 teaches that a response action (a response) based on the answers to the questions is provided to the patient.]
[…];
connecting the user to a customer service representative if the user has additional questions; and [Balram at Para. 0044, 0070 teaches that the user is connected to live doctor (a customer service representative, which is a non-functional label) based on a triage determination by the virtual doctor.]
sending an email to the customer service representative with a request to contact the user. [Hoffman at Para. 0031 teaches that a consumer emails a question to a customer service representative if they have a specific question (a request of White).
Regarding the “connecting” feature, the USPTO interprets claim limitations that contain “if, may, might, can, could, when, potentially, possibly” as optional language. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations since they can be omitted; “[c]laim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.” MPEP 2111.04 & 2173.05(d) (see also In re Johnston, 435 F3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006)). Balram teaches the functionality of connecting a patient to another person. The condition precedent, however, is optional and the Examiner declines to that the option. The Examiner also notes that White teaches this feature at Para. 0135.
Balram/White/Hoffman may not explicitly teach
offering a list of approved healthcare sites to the user;
receiving the user's selection of a healthcare site from the offered list;
presenting additional information about the selected healthcare site, […];
Bowles at Fig. 2, Para. 0030, 0032, 0033, 0041, 0044, 0048, 0056-0058, 0063 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to provide a patient with a list of providers, receive selection of one of the providers, and provide additional information
offering a list of approved healthcare sites to the user; [Bowles at Fig. 2, Para. 0030, 0032, 0056 teaches that a request system (interpreted to correspond to the virtual doctor / chatbot of Balrma/White, see Para. 0048)) provides a list of healthcare providers and their locations to a patient on their smartphone device. Para. 0041, 0044 teaches that the providers are selected based on insurance (i.e., they are approved for that insurance, the Examiner noting that there is no indication what an Approved healthcare site must or must not be; see also Bowles at Para. 0063).]
receiving the user's selection of a healthcare site from the offered list; [Bowles at Para. 0030, 0033, 0057 teaches that a selection is made from the list by the patient.]
presenting additional information about the selected healthcare site […],; [Bowles at Para. 0058 teaches that appointment information for the selection is provided to the patient.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the virtual doctor / telemedicine system of Belram having the receipt of a chatbot request from a patient related to patient’s EMR data and to provision of the EMR data to the patient via the chatbot and email to a provider of White having the sending of an email question to a customer service representative that is association with a user question of Hoffman to provide a patient with a list of providers, receive selection of one of the providers, and provide additional information as taught by Bowles, with the motivation of improving customer experience and decreasing healthcare costs (see Bowles at Para. 0003).
Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles may not teach that the additional information includes directions to the site. However, the limitation claims information/labels that constitute nonfunctional descriptive information that is/are not functionally involved in the recited system. The function described by the system would be performed the same regardless of whether the claimed information/labels was substituted with nothing. Because the Bowles teaches providing appointment information to the patient, substituting the information/labels of the claimed invention for the information/labels of the prior art would be an obvious substitution of one known element for another, producing predictable results. Therefore, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the information/labels applied to the authentication data of the prior art with any other information/labels because the results would have been predictable. MPEP 2112.01, Section III (see also In re Ngai, Ex Parte Breslow). The Examiner notes that nothing is ever done with the directions other than presenting them.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claims 1 and 6. Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles further teaches
wherein the user's selection determines the subsequent information provided by the chatbot application. [Bowles at Para. 005 teaches that appointment information for the appointment selected is provided.]
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claims 1 and 6. Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles may not explicitly teach
wherein the additional information provided about the selected healthcare site includes address, contact information, operating hours, and specific user preparations.
However, the limitation claims information/labels that constitute nonfunctional descriptive information that is/are not functionally involved in the recited system. The function described by the system would be performed the same regardless of whether the claimed information/labels was substituted with nothing. Because the Bowles teaches providing appointment information to the patient, substituting the information/labels of the claimed invention for the information/labels of the prior art would be an obvious substitution of one known element for another, producing predictable results. Therefore, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the information/labels applied to the authentication data of the prior art with any other information/labels because the results would have been predictable. MPEP 2112.01, Section III (see also In re Ngai, Ex Parte Breslow). The Examiner notes that nothing is ever done with the noted information than presenting them.
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for facilitating telemedicine service and information retrieval of Claims 1 and 6. Balram/White/Hoffman/Bowles further teaches
wherein the chatbot application is configured to process natural language queries. [White at Para. 0050, 0104-0106, 0112 teaches that the chatbot utilizes natural language processing.]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 22 AND 23
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 6 and 7, respectively, thus Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 6 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection(s) to Claims 17, the Applicant has cancelled claim 17 rendering the objection moot.
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawings which have alleviated the drawing issues. The drawings are accepted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claims 3, 4, 8, and 11-20, rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claimed steps of authenticating users via network-transmitted identifiers, analyzing requests via server-side program code, and providing secure access to electronic health records are computer-implemented data operations, not cognitive or interpersonal activities.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The authentication, functionality of analyzing the request, and functionality of providing authenticated access to medical records are part of the abstract idea; they are part of the rule or instructions. The particular items that perform the functions (a server having program code) is an additional element that was analyzed and found to not provide a practical application or significantly more.
This represents a technological improvement in telemedicine communication infrastructure, not a generic "interaction between people."
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not claiming the entire field of telemedicine and are confined to a generically-described server. The applicant has not identified nor can the examiner located any improvement to the server or another technology.
Prior telemedicine systems required manual user verification and human-mediated scheduling, which resulted in delays, inefficiencies, and security vulnerabilities.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that the as-filed disclosure does not describe this as being a problem contemplated by the inventors. It appears to be mere conjecture on the part of applicant’s representative. Further, even if this was supported, the Examiner notes that automatic verification for a chatbot session and automatic scheduling is/was not a problem at the time of filing. See, e.g., Alexa and Zocdoc, both of which were available well-prior to Applicant’s application date.
These operations improve system reliability, processing efficiency, and security, representing a technical improvement to a computer-based communication environment, not a method of organizing human behavior. This satisfies the "machine-or-transformation" test, confirming the presence of a practical application.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully submits that the as-filed disclosure does not describe these features as resulting from the implementation of the invention. It appears to be mere conjecture on the part of applicant’s representative. Even assuming they were/are present, there is no nexus in the claims as to how system reliability, processing efficiency, and security is improved. Further, the mere manipulation of data has been held to not constitute a transformation. See MPEP 2106.05(c): “mere manipulation of basic mathematical constructs i.e., the paradigmatic abstract idea, has not been deemed a transformation” (internal quotations omitted).
Amended claim 1 requires: network communication between computing- devices; execution of program code on a server, and automated access to secure electronic health records. These operations require high-speed computation, secure data transfer protocols, and system-level authentication functions, none of which can be executed by a human or by mental reasoning.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully submits that the “network communication between computing- devices” and “execution of program code on a server” are not part of the abstract idea and thus this argument is inapplicable. They were analyzed as additional elements. Regarding the “automated access to secure electronic health records,” the word “automated is not in the claim. Further, “providing access to the user to the electronic health records upon authentication” is part of the abstract idea and can be performed by a human.
Applicant submits additional elements recited in amended claim 1 provide an inventive concept beyond any alleged abstract idea. Specifically, amended claim 1 employs a specific server-based authentication system that validates identity via personal identifiers and utilize programmatic analysis to interpret and respond to medical inquiries. Further, amended claim 1 integrates automated escalation mechanisms through email-based routing. These concrete technological features are not routine or conventional in prior telemedicine systems, which typically relied on static user portals or human intermediaries.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “authentication … that validates identity via personal identifiers and utilize … analysis to interpret and respond to medical inquiries” are part of the abstract idea and are not additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Thus, whether or not the abstraction is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) is immaterial. The items that perform these functions (the server / chatbot) were analyzed as additional elements. The prior art of record indicates that the chatbot is WURC while the Alice Corp. decision itself indicates that a generic computer is WURC.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 6-10, 13, 15, and 19, the Applicant has cancelled claims 13, 15, and 19 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. The Applicant has also amended Claims 6-10 to overcome the basis of rejection; the rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claims 3, 4, 8, and 11-20, rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Dempers et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2024/0212806) which discloses a secure mobile-accessible patient EMR that allows for automatic replication.
Tripuraneni (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2024/0428941) which discloses a personalized digital healthcare assistant that uses an LLM to provide answers to patient questions and recommend and intervention.
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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683