DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 4 February 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 19, and 20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Interpretation Note
The claims recite a “referral entity” and a “first provider.” For clarity, Examiner notes that the “referral entity” is a medical provider which the user is referred to if the system determines a referral is recommended (See at least [0005]). And “first provider” refers to an entity which determines whether a referral is recommended (See at least [0005]). This usage appears to be the reverse of what might be the expected terminology, but there is no ambiguity regarding the meaning of these terms in view of the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 19 and 20, recites a
receiving,
determining,
assigning,
providing,
after providing the first provider
receiving,
generating,
sending,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describes a concept of managing patient data evaluation and provider referrals, which is unambiguously a commercial interaction as well as the management of interactions between people. As such, the claims are determined to set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 describe the method as computer implemented and further recites various steps perform by a computing device. Claim 19 recites the additional element of a computer-readable storage medium. Claim 20 recites the additional element of at least one memory and a computing device. These additional elements are all recited at a very high level and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Claim 20 further recites a patient computing device with one or more input devices and a provider computing device. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional elements of receiving data from a patient computing device, receiving data from a provider computing device, and providing data to a provider computing device. These additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, these additional elements, individually and in combination with each other and the prior computing devices, only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are no further additional elements. Therefore the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional elements of receiving data from a patient computing device, receiving data from a provider computing device, and providing data to a provider computing device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, these additional elements, individually and in combination with each other and the prior identified computing devices, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 3-5, 8-15, 17, and 18 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons equivalent to those articulated above. As such, these dependent claims are also determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Further, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons equivalent to those articulated above. Dependent claim 2 further recites the additional element of providing data to a second provider computing device. This additional element, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this dependent claim is also determined to be directed to an abstract idea. As previously noted, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 6 further recites the additional element of obtaining data from a database, dependent claim 7 further recites the additional element of adding data to a database, and dependent claim 16 further recites the additional element of sending data to a database. These additional elements, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these dependent claims are also determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of Bulat (US 2004/0116785 A1) and Nudd et al. (US 2014/0039962 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20: CheckMySpot discloses a computer-implemented method for a telemedicine platform for location-based provider screening and referral, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, patient data and image data from a patient computing device associated with a patient (“Follow the prompts to enter some basic information such as your name, phone number, and date of birth.” See at least 0:28-0:34. Also: “Let’s go ahead and upload our first photo. Tap the green plus sign at the bottom center of the screen. You’ll notice a simple progress tracker at top of the screen guiding us through five easy steps. There’s also a written guide available if you’re having trouble. Simply press the information icon below the progress tracker. Step 1, first select the box for either body or head depending on where your lesion is located. You’ll also need to select front or back view below the diagram to further specify the correct location. Note that toggling between front and back changes the right and left assignment. When looking at the front of the diagram right and left appear as mirror opposites while the diagram’s back view of right and left are the same as you right and left side. Tap the specific location of your lesion on the diagram. Let’s use an example case of the back of the left hand. First, we’ll select the body diagram. Then the back view button located below the diagram. Then we simply tap on the diagram’s left hand. The location description left had will be automatically generated below the diagram. Be sure to confirm your location description as correct. Especially right versus left before proceeding. Step 2. Upload two photos of your lesion. A location photo and a detail photo. Following the photo guidelines is critical to getting the clearest picture of your lesion. If this is your first time uploading an image we recommend you watch the full video on how to take a proper photo. Before preceding you’ll need to confirm that you have reviewed the instructions for taking a proper photo by checking the confirmation box. Then it’s time to take the first location photo. Follow the instructions for taking this photo. Confirm your photo is in focus with an anatomic landmark included as instructed. Next you’ll be prompted to take you detailed photo. You must confirm in this photo your skin spot is in focus without shadows and composed to occupy the majority of the frame. Step 3. Once you’ve uploaded both lesion photos, answer a few simple questions about your symptoms. Here you can provide information such as is your lesion painful, is the area itchy, has the lesion changed colors. Be sure to answer all the fields and add any family history here as well. This information helps our provides more precisely screen the appearance of your spot. Step 4. Now you’re ready to submit everything for your evaluation.” See at least 1:43-4:19);
determining, by the computing device, a geolocation of the patient computing device (“Please note you location will be automatically determined by our app. This is necessary to comply with federal and state regulations when offering medical services and will also help us locate a certified dermatologist in your area in the event that your screener recommends an in person clinical visit” See at least 0:34-0:51);
assigning, by the computing device, the patient to a referral entity based on the geolocation of the patient computing device (“Please note you location will be automatically determined by our app. This is necessary to comply with federal and state regulations when offering medical services and will also help us locate a certified dermatologist in your area in the event that your screener recommends an in person clinical visit” See at least 0:34-0:51).
providing, by the computing device, a first provider computing device associated with a first provider with access to the patient data and the image data; receiving, by the computing device, case data from the first provider computing device; generating, by the computing device, a report based at least in part on the patient data, the image data, and the case data (“And press submit. Your case is now on its way to a certified CheckMySpot provider for review. Once you’ve submitted your lesion, you can expect a full disposition report within 48 hours. This report will be emailed to you and added to your patient profile within the CheckMySpot App.” See at least 4:56-5:14. Also: At 4:58, Video shows a notification which reads: “You skin spot has been successfully submitted to CheckMySpot’s team of experienced and credentialed dermatology providers. Also: At 5:19, Video shows a “Case Summary Report” including an entry of “Rendering Provider: Michael Webb, MD”).
sending, by the computing device, the report to the referral entity based on the case data (“if CheckMySpot determines you’d benefit from an in-person appointment, we’ll help find a certified dermatologist near you and even forward our findings to assist this dermatologist in scheduling your appointment.” See at least 1:10-1:23).
CheckMySpot does not expressly disclose providing the first provider with data based on the geolocation of the patient computing device.
However, Bulat teaches providing the first provider with data based on the geolocation of the patient (The physician call center may be a single call center that provides international, national or regional connections, or it may be one of a plurality of physician call centers that are in communication with one another to provide such connections. A call from a patient is received at the physician call center in process 102, and the call is routed to an available physician or other health care practitioner. In one embodiment, the available physician must be a board certified physician who is licensed to practice medicine in the state wherein the patient is located. For example, if the patient is calling into the call center from Massachusetts, then the call center will route the patient's call to a physician terminal manned by a board certified physician who is licensed to practice medicine in Massachusetts. See at least [0034]).
CheckMySpot provides a teledermatology system where healthcare providers review user provided data, upon which the claimed invention’s provision of the user provided data based on the location of the user can be seen as an improvement. However, Bulat demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing user data to healthcare providers based on the location of the user, in order for healthcare providers to be licensed in the region that the user occupies. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Bulat to the system of CheckMySpot so that the healthcare providers reviewing user provided data are collocated with the users. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Bulat would have resulted in an improved system which would provide users with medical advice from a healthcare provider licensed in the same state as the users. As such, the application of Bulat would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat.
CheckMySpot does not appear to disclose after providing the first provider computing device with access to the patient data and the image data: determining whether more than a first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provider computing device was provided access to the patient data and the image data; and in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provider computing device was provided access to the patient data and the image data, providing a second provider computing device associated with a supervisory provider with access to the patient data and the image data.
However, Nudd teaches after providing the first provider with a task: determining whether more than a first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provider was provided with the task; and in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provided was provided with the task, providing a supervisor with the task (Accordingly the method 1200 may include retrieving 1202 a task or SCA, evaluating 1204 whether the retrieved activity is a time sensitive task and evaluating 1206 whether the activity is an SCA. If the activity is found to be either a time sensitive task or SCA, an alert may be generated 1208. Generating 1208 an alert may include making an entry or instruction that will prompt generation of an alert at an appropriate time. Generating 1208 an alert may include making an entry or instruction that will prompt evaluation of the status of the SCA or task at an appropriate time and generate an alert if the SCA or task has not been one of started or completed depending on the type of alert. In some embodiments, alerts may include reminders to a provider to start or end an SCA or task at an appropriate time. Alerts may include warnings or alerts provided to supervisors or concerned parties if a task or SCA is not started or completed within a proscribed time period. Upon completion or initiation of a task or SCA, status updates may be received 1210 according to methods described herein. See at least [0153]. Also: alerts are provided via the web portal 400, via text messaging, via outbound calling as enabled via the telephony service, or other means known to those skilled in the art to the work manager, the work provider, persons associated with the client, or other stakeholders in the event that a clock-in is missed or if a task is not completed, completed, and/or marked with a status which is designated to trigger an alert. Thus, the telephony service in the work management system enables a variety of stakeholders to have real-time visibility of highly specific tasks without requiring a costly remote computer terminal such as, by way of example, a mobile computing tablet 500. See at least [0123].
CheckMySpot and Bulat suggests a teledermatology system where healthcare providers review user provided data, upon which the claimed invention’s notification of a supervisor based on a determination that a review has not been completed within a certain amount can be seen as an improvement. However, Nudd demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing supervisors with task information if worker tasks have not been completed within a certain amount of time. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Nudd to the system of CheckMySpot and Bulat. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Nudd would have resulted in a system which would prevent CheckMySpot’s customers from having to wait longer than the designated amount of time to receive their results. As such, the application of Nudd, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat and Nudd.
Regarding Claim 2: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. CheckMySpot does not appear to disclose prior to receiving the case data from the first provider computing device, determining that more than a second predetermined amount of time has passed since the patient data and the image data were received from the patient computing device; determining that the case data has not been received from the first provider computing device; and providing the second provider computing device associated with the supervisory provider with access to the patient data and the image data.
As previously noted in combination with CheckMySpot, Nudd teaches prior to receiving the work product from the first provider, determining that more than a predetermined amount of time has passed since the job data was received; determining that the work product has not been received from the first provider; and providing the supervisor with access to the job data (Accordingly the method 1200 may include retrieving 1202 a task or SCA, evaluating 1204 whether the retrieved activity is a time sensitive task and evaluating 1206 whether the activity is an SCA. If the activity is found to be either a time sensitive task or SCA, an alert may be generated 1208. Generating 1208 an alert may include making an entry or instruction that will prompt generation of an alert at an appropriate time. Generating 1208 an alert may include making an entry or instruction that will prompt evaluation of the status of the SCA or task at an appropriate time and generate an alert if the SCA or task has not been one of started or completed depending on the type of alert. In some embodiments, alerts may include reminders to a provider to start or end an SCA or task at an appropriate time. Alerts may include warnings or alerts provided to supervisors or concerned parties if a task or SCA is not started or completed within a proscribed time period. Upon completion or initiation of a task or SCA, status updates may be received 1210 according to methods described herein. See at least [0153]. Also: alerts are provided via the web portal 400, via text messaging, via outbound calling as enabled via the telephony service, or other means known to those skilled in the art to the work manager, the work provider, persons associated with the client, or other stakeholders in the event that a clock-in is missed or if a task is not completed, completed, and/or marked with a status which is designated to trigger an alert. Thus, the telephony service in the work management system enables a variety of stakeholders to have real-time visibility of highly specific tasks without requiring a costly remote computer terminal such as, by way of example, a mobile computing tablet 500. See at least [0123]). The motivation to combine CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd is equivalent to claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 4: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses generating a notification indicating that a case has been assigned to the first provider; and sending the notification to the first provider computing device (See at least image associated with 4:58).
Regarding Claim 6: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses identifying, based on the geolocation of the patient computing device, one or more referral entities located within a predetermined distance from the geolocation; determining that a referral entity is one of the one or more referral entities (“If you don’t already have a dermatologist, no problem. If CheckMySpot determines you’d benefit from an in person appointment, we’ll help find a certified dermatologist near you, and even forward our findings to assist this dermatologist in scheduling your appointment.” 1:07-1:23). Separate from the prior disclosure, CheckMySpot discloses a preferred referral entity selected by the patient (“You will then be asked to identify your existing dermatology provider.” See at least 0:55-1:07) and obtaining, from a database configured to store information associated with the one or more referral entities, information associated with the preferred referral entity (See at least image associated with 1:05 and 1:07, where the selection of “Butler Jose” resulted in populating the further information regarding this healthcare provider into the fields of the form); wherein sending the report to the referral entity comprises sending the report to the preferred referral entity (“You will then be asked to identify your existing dermatology provider. This is so that CheckMySpot can forward any significant findings to your dermatologist in the event an in clinic appointment is recommended.” See at least 0:55-1:07).
CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd suggest a teledermatology system which identifies a healthcare provider near a user, upon which the claimed invention’s receiving of a healthcare provider selection, retrieval of information regarding the selected healthcare provider, and sending of a report to the selected healthcare provider can be seen as an improvement. However, CheckMySpot separately demonstrates that the prior art knew of receiving of a healthcare provider selection, retrieval of information regarding the selected healthcare provider, and sending of a report to the selected healthcare provider. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the user provider selection techniques in conjunction with the determination of providers near a user. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the application of CheckMySpot’s location selection techniques in conjunction with CheckMySpot’s user selected providers would have resulted in an improved system which would prevent users from selecting providers who are excessively far from a user. As such, the application of CheckMySpot, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat and Nudd.
Regarding Claim 11: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein generating the report based at least in part on the patient data, the image data, and the case data comprises: generating a color-coded disposition based on a case disposition included in the case data; creating the report based at least in part on the patient data, the image data, and the case data, wherein the report includes at least a portion of the patient data, the image data, and the case data; and determining whether to send the report to the referral entity based on the color-coded disposition (See at least image associated with 5:19, 5:26, 5:34, 5:46, and 6:30).
Regarding Claim 12: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the report is sent to the referral entity within a predetermined amount of time after the patient data and the image data are received from the patient computing device (“if CheckMySpot determines you’d benefit from an in-person appointment, we’ll help find a certified dermatologist near you and even forward our findings to assist this dermatologist in scheduling your appointment.” See at least 1:10-1:23).
Regarding Claim 13: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the patient data comprises one or more of biographical information, medical history, or symptoms of the patient associated with the patient computing device (“Follow the prompts to enter some basic information such as your name, phone number, and date of birth.” See at least 0:28-0:34. Also: “Let’s go ahead and upload our first photo. Tap the green plus sign at the bottom center of the screen. You’ll notice a simple progress tracker at top of the screen guiding us through five easy steps. There’s also a written guide available if you’re having trouble. Simply press the information icon below the progress tracker. Step 1, first select the box for either body or head depending on where your lesion is located. You’ll also need to select front or back view below the diagram to further specify the correct location. Note that toggling between front and back changes the right and left assignment. When looking at the front of the diagram right and left appear as mirror opposites while the diagram’s back view of right and left are the same as you right and left side. Tap the specific location of your lesion on the diagram. Let’s use an example case of the back of the left hand. First, we’ll select the body diagram. Then the back view button located below the diagram. Then we simply tap on the diagram’s left hand. The location description left had will be automatically generated below the diagram. Be sure to confirm your location description as correct. Especially right versus left before proceeding. Step 2. Upload two photos of your lesion. A location photo and a detail photo. Following the photo guidelines is critical to getting the clearest picture of your lesion. If this is your first time uploading an image we recommend you watch the full video on how to take a proper photo. Before preceding you’ll need to confirm that you have reviewed the instructions for taking a proper photo by checking the confirmation box. Then it’s time to take the first location photo. Follow the instructions for taking this photo. Confirm your photo is in focus with an anatomic landmark included as instructed. Next you’ll be prompted to take you detailed photo. You must confirm in this photo your skin spot is in focus without shadows and composed to occupy the majority of the frame. Step 3. Once you’ve uploaded both lesion photos, answer a few simple questions about your symptoms. Here you can provide information such as is your lesion painful, is the area itchy, has the lesion changed colors. Be sure to answer all the fields and add any family history here as well. This information helps our provides more precisely screen the appearance of your spot. Step 4. Now you’re ready to submit everything for your evaluation.” See at least 1:43-4:19).
Regarding Claim 14: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the image data comprises one or more photographs of a spot on the patient's skin captured by a camera of the patient computing device (“Follow the prompts to enter some basic information such as your name, phone number, and date of birth.” See at least 0:28-0:34. Also: “Let’s go ahead and upload our first photo. Tap the green plus sign at the bottom center of the screen. You’ll notice a simple progress tracker at top of the screen guiding us through five easy steps. There’s also a written guide available if you’re having trouble. Simply press the information icon below the progress tracker. Step 1, first select the box for either body or head depending on where your lesion is located. You’ll also need to select front or back view below the diagram to further specify the correct location. Note that toggling between front and back changes the right and left assignment. When looking at the front of the diagram right and left appear as mirror opposites while the diagram’s back view of right and left are the same as you right and left side. Tap the specific location of your lesion on the diagram. Let’s use an example case of the back of the left hand. First, we’ll select the body diagram. Then the back view button located below the diagram. Then we simply tap on the diagram’s left hand. The location description left had will be automatically generated below the diagram. Be sure to confirm your location description as correct. Especially right versus left before proceeding. Step 2. Upload two photos of your lesion. A location photo and a detail photo. Following the photo guidelines is critical to getting the clearest picture of your lesion. If this is your first time uploading an image we recommend you watch the full video on how to take a proper photo. Before preceding you’ll need to confirm that you have reviewed the instructions for taking a proper photo by checking the confirmation box. Then it’s time to take the first location photo. Follow the instructions for taking this photo. Confirm your photo is in focus with an anatomic landmark included as instructed. Next you’ll be prompted to take you detailed photo. You must confirm in this photo your skin spot is in focus without shadows and composed to occupy the majority of the frame. Step 3. Once you’ve uploaded both lesion photos, answer a few simple questions about your symptoms. Here you can provide information such as is your lesion painful, is the area itchy, has the lesion changed colors. Be sure to answer all the fields and add any family history here as well. This information helps our provides more precisely screen the appearance of your spot. Step 4. Now you’re ready to submit everything for your evaluation.” See at least 1:43-4:19).
Regarding Claim 15: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the case data comprises one or more of provider information associated with the provider, comments from the provider, or a case disposition (“And press submit. Your case is now on its way to a certified CheckMySpot provider for review. Once you’ve submitted your lesion, you can expect a full disposition report within 48 hours. This report will be emailed to you and added to your patient profile within the CheckMySpot App.” See at least 4:56-5:14. Also: At 4:58, Video shows a notification which reads: “You skin spot has been successfully submitted to CheckMySpot’s team of experienced and credentialed dermatology providers. Also: At 5:19, Video shows a “Case Summary Report” including an entry of “Rendering Provider: Michael Webb, MD”).
Regarding Claim 16: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses sending the patient data and the image data to a database configured to store the patient data and the image data (“If you have an account log in to access all your saved information stored securely in our HIPPA compliant patient portal.” See at least 0:18-0:25. Also: “You can continue to access prior reports and photographs after your evaluation in order to track any changes in your lesion history.” See at least 5:49-5:57).
Regarding Claim 17: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the referral entity is selected by the patient (“You will then be asked to identify your existing dermatology provider. This is so that CheckMySpot can forward any significant findings to your dermatologist in the event an in clinic appointment is recommended.” See at least 0:55-1:07. Also: See images associated with 0:57 and 1:07).
Regarding Claim 18: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot disclose wherein the provider is different from the referral entity. (See at least video at 6:30, noting “Rendering Provider: Michael Webb, MD” and “Referral Site: NorthShore Dermatology Associates”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of Bulat (US 2004/0116785 A1) and Nudd et al. (US 2014/0039962 A1), and further in view of Smith (US 2010/0049618 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. CheckMySpot does not appear to disclose determining that the first provider has a provider quality assurance rating below a predetermined threshold; and setting the first provider on a probation status.
However, Smith teaches determining that the first provider has a quality assurance rating below a predetermined threshold; and setting the first provider on a probation status (Should a professional or service provider's rating drop to a predetermined level they are placed on probation and the referral service will determine a proper course of action. This course of action may include the professional or service provider being dropped because they will not improve. The professional or service provider may be temporarily removed from the referral service and a plan to improve their service will be suggested by the referral service. See at least [0037]).
CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd suggests a teledermatology system where healthcare providers review user provided data, upon which the claimed invention’s use of quality ratings to put providers on probation can be seen as an improvement. However, Smith demonstrates that the prior art already knew of determining that a professional’s quality ratings have dropped below a threshold and putting them on probation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Smith to the healthcare provider reviewers in the system of CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Smith would have resulted in an improved system which would prevent user data from being reviewed by low quality providers. As such, the application of Smith, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat, Nudd, and Smith.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of Bulat (US 2004/0116785 A1) and Nudd et al. (US 2014/0039962 A1), and further in view of Khindaria et al. (US 2017/0039338 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses identifying, based on the geolocation of the patient computing device, one or more referral entities located within a predetermined distance from the geolocation (“If you don’t already have a dermatologist, no problem. If CheckMySpot determines you’d benefit from an in person appointment, we’ll help find a certified dermatologist near you, and even forward our findings to assist this dermatologist in scheduling your appointment.” 1:07-1:23).
CheckMySpot does not expressly disclose receiving one or more referral entity ratings each associated with one of the one or more referral entities; and selecting the referral entity based on the referral entity rating associated with the referral entity, wherein the selected referral entity is the highest rated of the one or more referral entities based on the referral entity ratings.
However, Khindaria teaches receiving one or more referral entity ratings each associated with one of the one or more referral entities; and selecting the referral entity based on the referral entity rating associated with the referral entity, wherein the selected referral entity is the highest rated of the one or more referral entities based on the referral entity ratings (for each of a plurality of healthcare providers, receiving data comprising one or more of ratings, type, availability, and location, and managing the data in a data store. See at least [0003]. Also: Upon receiving a referral to provide specific health care services to a patient, the resource allocation tool helps the administrator to optimize the selection of the service provider based on various criterion, such as specific skills and specialties of the service provider, geographic location or proximity of the service provider relative to the patient, time availability of the service provider, rating of the service provider (e.g., based on prior patients), and the like. See at least [0017]).
CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd suggests a teledermatology system which determines whether a referral to a healthcare provider is recommended and provides a referral to a healthcare provider when it is appropriate, upon which the claimed invention’s selection of a healthcare provider based on ratings can be seen as an improvement. However, Khindaria demonstrates that the prior art already knew of selecting a healthcare provider for a referral based on ratings and availability. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Khindaria to the system of CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd to select healthcare providers for referral. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Khindaria would have resulted in an improved system which would refer patients to the best available healthcare provider. As such, the application of Khindaria, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat, Nudd, and Khindaria.
Regarding Claim 8: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. CheckMySpot does not appear to disclose prior to providing the first provider computing device with access to the patient data and the image data, receiving a schedule from each of a plurality of provider computing devices including the first provider computing device, each provider computing device associated with a provider of a plurality of providers, wherein each respective schedule identifies an availability of a provider associated with the respective schedule; receiving one or more provider ratings each associated with one of the plurality of providers; and selecting the first provider from the plurality of providers based on the provider ratings associated with the plurality of providers, wherein the selected provider is the highest rated of the plurality of providers based on the provider ratings and is available based on the availability of the provider.
Khindaria teaches prior to providing the first provider computing device with access to the patient data, receiving a schedule from each of a plurality of provider computing devices including the first provider computing device, each provider computing device associated with a provider of a plurality of providers, wherein each respective schedule identifies an availability of a provider associated with the respective schedule; Receiving one or more provider ratings each associated with one of the plurality of providers; And selecting the first provider from the plurality of providers based on the provider ratings associated with the plurality of providers, wherein the selected provider is the highest rate of the plurality of providers based on the provider ratings and is available based on the availability of the provider (for each of a plurality of healthcare providers, receiving data comprising one or more of ratings, type, availability, and location, and managing the data in a data store. See at least [0003]. Also: Upon receiving a referral to provide specific health care services to a patient, the resource allocation tool helps the administrator to optimize the selection of the service provider based on various criterion, such as specific skills and specialties of the service provider, geographic location or proximity of the service provider relative to the patient, time availability of the service provider, rating of the service provider (e.g., based on prior patients), and the like. See at least [0017]).
CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd suggests a teledermatology system which determines whether a referral to a healthcare provider is recommended and provides a referral to a healthcare provider when it is appropriate, upon which the claimed invention’s selection of a healthcare provider based on ratings and availability can be seen as an improvement. However, Khindaria demonstrates that the prior art already knew of selecting a healthcare provider for a referral based on ratings and availability. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Khindaria to the system of CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd to select healthcare providers for referral. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Khindaria would have resulted in an improved system which would refer patients to the best available healthcare provider. As such, the application of Khindaria, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat, Nudd, and Khindaria.
Regarding Claim 9: CheckMySpot, Bulat, Nudd, and Khindaria make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Khindaria teaches wherein the provider rating associated with each of the plurality of providers comprises a provider quality assurance rating for each provider of the plurality of providers, wherein the provider quality assurance rating is based on timeliness of a provider associated with the provider quality assurance rating (The rating can be a representation of the opinion of the patients 202 who have previously used the provider. See at least [0025]). The motivation to combine CheckMySpot, Balut, Nudd, and Khindaria is the same as explained under claim 8 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 10: CheckMySpot, Bulat, Nudd, and Khindaria make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Khindaria teaches wherein the rating associated with each of the plurality of providers comprises a provider quality assurance rating for each provider of the plurality of providers, wherein the provider quality assurance rating is further based on an adherence of a provider associated with the provider quality assurance rating to a quality assurance review (The rating can be a representation of the opinion of the patients 202 who have previously used the provider. See at least [0025]). The motivation to combine CheckMySpot, Balut, Nudd, and Khindaria is the same as explained under claim 8 above, and is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of Bulat (US 2004/0116785 A1) and Nudd et al. (US 2014/0039962 A1), and further in view of O’Grady (US 2016/0292807 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd make obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses identifying, based on the geolocation of the patient computing device, one or more referral entities located within a predetermined distance from the geolocation; determining that a referral entity is one of the one or more referral entities (“If you don’t already have a dermatologist, no problem. If CheckMySpot determines you’d benefit from an in person appointment, we’ll help find a certified dermatologist near you, and even forward our findings to assist this dermatologist in scheduling your appointment.” 1:07-1:23). Separate from the prior disclosure, CheckMySpot discloses a preferred referral entity selected by the patient (“You will then be asked to identify your existing dermatology provider.” See at least 0:55-1:07) and; wherein sending the report to the referral entity comprises sending the report to the preferred referral entity (“You will then be asked to identify your existing dermatology provider. This is so that CheckMySpot can forward any significant findings to your dermatologist in the event an in clinic appointment is recommended.” See at least 0:55-1:07).
CheckMySpot and Balut suggest a teledermatology system which identifies a healthcare provider near a user, upon which the claimed invention’s receiving of a healthcare provider selection and sending of a report to the selected healthcare provider can be seen as an improvement. However, CheckMySpot separately demonstrates that the prior art knew of receiving of a healthcare provider selection and sending of a report to the selected healthcare provider. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the user provider selection techniques in conjunction with the determination of providers near a user. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the application of CheckMySpot’s location selection techniques in conjunction with CheckMySpot’s user selected providers would have resulted in an improved system which would prevent users from selecting providers who are excessively far from a user. As such, the application of CheckMySpot would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat.
CheckMySpot does not appear to disclose determining that the preferred referral entity is not in a database configured to store information associated with the one or more referral entities; and adding an entry to the database, the entry comprising information associated with the preferred referral entity.
However, O’Grady teaches determining that the preferred referral entity is not in a database configured to store information associated with the one or more referral entities; and adding an entry to the database, the entry comprising information associated with the preferred referral entity (If a doctor is to be added to the roster of physicians listed for the medical facility, the user may access an Add Doctor Page 50, shown in FIG. 8. In the example shown, the Add Doctor Page 50 includes one or more fields for entering information about the doctor to be added to the FindaTopDoc relational database 90. The information to be provided for the additional doctor may include: (1) name of the doctor; (2) fields in which the doctor specializes; (3) the doctor's medical license; and (iv) contact information for the additional doctor. A photograph for the doctor may be obtained from an image obtained at the time of system setup by using a Photo Button 54, or a photograph may be downloaded from the FindaTopDoc relational database 90 by using a Photo Gallery Button 56. See at least [0030]).
CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd suggest a teledermatology system which allows users to select healthcare providers from a database, upon which the claimed invention’s techniques for adding a healthcare provider to a database can be seen as an improvement. However, O’Grady demonstrates that the prior art already knew of such adding of healthcare providers to a database when they are not present. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of O’Grady to the system of CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of O’Grady would have resulted in an improved system which would learn new health provider information so subsequent patients wouldn’t have to manually enter it. As such, the application of O’Grady would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of CheckMySpot and the teachings of Bulat, Nudd, and O’Grady.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
Applicant’s claims are also not an abstract idea because they focus on a specific approach to handling a particular problem.
Applicant’s claims are not an abstract idea because the claims as a whole focus on a specific technical approach to enabling smartphones (and similar devices) to initiate a quick turnaround and asynchronous screening of a section of skin based on smartphone-captured images by using specific and ordered combination of steps.
The claims do not merely “use existing computers as tools” but are a “specific improvement” in the functionality and efficiency of multi-user real-time computing systems, namely, it ensures that an initial screening occurs within a reasonable amount of time with minimal effort or expense from patients.
The pending claims provide advanced to the technical field of real-time computing.
These improvement help with solving the problem of ensuring potential cancerous skin lesions are rapidly identified and treated. They do so by massively reducing the effort and expense to patients – overcoming patient inertia --- while also rapidly locating and engaging an appropriate medical provider and monitoring the provider’s access to patient data to ensure timely evaluation.
This specific approach closely replicates the real-world flow of a patient presenting a concern directly to a licensed physician in their geographical area for initial screening and disposition.
The claims describe the improvements in a very specific manner. In fact, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are even more specific than Claim 1 of Example 37, in which the Office articulated that while the claims “could be performed in the mind,” the claims were specific enough in terms of “automatically displaying icons to the user based on the usage,” resulting in an improve user interface for electronic device.
Amended claim 1 recites a telemedicine screening method of a computing system, including [recitation of independent claim body]. Accordingly, the recited operations or functions require programmed operations and hardware that are innovative and unique.
Like the claims in BASCOM, Applicant’s claims do not preempt all ways of conducting telemedicine platforms for asynchronous medical screenings. … The fact that the claims do not preempt all ways of conducting asynchronous medical screening is by itself sufficient to satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Here, the Office has made no showing that the above-discussed elements of amended claim 1, such as “determining whether more than a first predetermined amount of time has passed since a first provider computing device was provided access to the patient data and the image data” and “in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provider computing device was provided access to the patient data and the image data, providing a second provider computing device associated with a supervisory provider with access to the patient data and the image data” are well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the Mayo/Alice analysis does not ask “whether a claim is an abstract idea”, but rather “whether a claim recites an abstract idea.”
The claims do not appear to use a “specific technical approach” so much as functionally describe a desired result of managing patient data evaluation and provider referrals in a computerized device technological environment.
The specification does not appear to provide technical details of implementing the claimed invention which indicates that the claimed invention does actually “use existing computers as tools.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, the disclosure does not provide details of technical implementation that suggest the claimed invention constitutes an improvement to “real-time computing.”
Reducing patient effort and expense does not per se render an improvement a technical improvement. Applicant’s characterization of the claim makes it clear that the improvement here is in the management of dermatological evaluation resources. This falls within the methods of organizing human activity grouping, and as such does not constitute a technical improvement.
Examiner agrees with applicant’s characterization of the claimed approach as “closely replicates the real-world flow of a patient presenting a concern directly to a licensed physician in their geographical area for initial screening and disposition.” This characterization further supports the determination that the claims describe a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s approach of attempting to resolve the eligibility analysis through comparing an personal sense of specificity to Example 37 is contradicted by the courts having found ineligible claims of apparently greater specificity than that of Example 37 (e.g., Ultramercial, Inc, v. Hulu). Further, Examiner notes that Example 37 specifically considered the additional elements of the claim, which is absent from Applicant’s analysis.
Examiner notes that the disclosure does not provide details of the “require[d] programmed operations and hardware that are innovative and unique.” If the hardware truly was innovative and unique, that absence would raise a 112(a) issue. No such rejection is given because the examiner does not find that any unique and innovative hardware is required. Further, MPEP 2106.05 specifically notes “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” Thus the uniqueness of the claims is irrelevant to the eligibility analysis.
Applicant’s characterization of the eligibility analysis is plainly contrary to actual eligibility guidance. Per MPEP 2106.04, “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility.”
First, Examiner notes that the current and prior rejections specifically provide evidence required by the Berkheimer memo for the additional elements considered conventional. Second, the identified feature is largely considered part of the abstract idea and thus is not an additional element. Examiner notes that the Mayo/Alice eligibility analysis cannot reasonably be reduced to a determine of whether every limitation of the claim is conventional.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-20: The cited references fail to disclose or suggest at least these features of amended claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claimed invention, including the identified features, are made obvious by CheckMySpot, Bulat, and Nudd as indicated in the above rejection.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 4 September 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-02-20