DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 5 June 2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 5 June 2026.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 10 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 is/are amended. Claim(s) 21-23 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 11-23 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation Note
Examiner notes that the subsequent claim interpretation note was previously provided and is repeated here only to enhance clarity of the current office action.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “monitoring, by the computing device, whether case data has been received from the first provider computing device.” Applicant’s remarks do not appear to identify any specific support for the amended limitation. There does not appear to be any description or discussion supporting the claim limitation of monitoring whether case data has been received in the application as filed. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider this limitation as supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claims 19 and 20 are similarly rejected.
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, 4-8, and 11-23 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
determining,
assigning,
selecting, s
providing,
monitoring,
determining,
in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed and that case data has not been received from the first provider
providing a second 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 a system comprising: at least one memory, one or more processors. The claims further include a patient computing device and provider computing devices. These additional elements are all recited at a very high level 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 element of receiving various data from a computing device and providing various data to a 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 only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of storing and updating data by a computer. 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 only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional elements of storing and updating data by a computer. However, 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 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11-18, and 21-23 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, and 21-23 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 the same reasons 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 the same reasons articulated above. Dependent claim 2 repeats the additional element of the independent claims, which continues to fail to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. 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, 11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of and LaPlante et al. (US 2008/0010093 A1).
Regarding Claim 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);
storing, by the computing device, the patient data and the image data in a record associated with a case (“if you already have an account log in to access all your saved information stored securely in our HIPAA compliant patient portal” See at least 0:18-0:26. Also: “once your personal app profile loads you’ll see any past uploads or notes from providers” See at least 1:34-1:40);
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);
selecting, by the computing device, a first provider computing device from a plurality of provider computing devices based on provider availability (“download the check my spot app today and get your suspicious skin spot reviewed by a dermatologist in 24 hours” See at least 7:08-7:15. Note MPEP 2144.01).
providing, by the computing device, the first provider computing device with access to the record including the patient data and the image data; monitoring, by the computing device, whether case data has been received from the first provider computing device; receiving, by the computing device, case data from at least one the first provider computing device or the second provider computing device; updating, by the computing device, the record based on the received case data; 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”); and
sending, by the computing device, the report to the referral entity (“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 appear to disclose: determining, by the computing device, 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; in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed and that case data has not been received from the first provider computing device: providing a second provider computing device associated with a supervisory provider with access to the record including the patient data and the image data;
LaPlante teaches determining, by a computing device, whether more than a first predetermined amount of time has passed since the first provider computing device was provided the patient data; in response to determining that more than the first predetermined amount of time has passed and that an action has not been received; providing a second provider computing device associated with a supervisory provider with the patient data (FIG. 16 further illustrates the present invention. The total interval time from event A to event B is 37 minutes. Since 21 to 40 minutes are acceptable, a 3 is assigned as a interval efficiency rating. Shortly after Event A, a initial device alert is sent to a portable device. For example, a patient's triage information is sent to a clinician's portable device. No efficiency points are deducted for this message. If the clinician does not respond, then a first redundant alert is sent about midway during the interval. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, efficiency points are deducted from the interval efficiency rating as a result of the first redundant alert being issued. Preferably 0.5 points are deducted. If the clinician still does not respond, then a second redundant alert is sent by the system of the present invention. More points are deducted as a result of the second alert being sent. If an escalation alert needs to be sent, for example, to the clinician's supervisor, even more efficiency points are deducted from the interval efficiency rating. See at least [0080]. Also: The passage of time without the detection of an expected event in step 34 can also generate another type of communication in step 40. This is a redundant, back-up communication. Generally, when a second, repeated communication does not generate an expected event, the system of the present invention causes a redundant communication to occur in step 40. Depending on the situation and the rules of communication set up by the system of the present invention, a redundant communication in step 40 may involve retransmitting the communication to the same communication devices as well as sending the communication to additional communication devices to ensure that the communication has been received. Thus, a redundant communication in step 40 may simply involve transmitting the communication to more people and more communication devices 22 to 28. It may also involve transmitting the communication to supervisors of the people that received the original communication. To do this, the system of the present invention maintains a list of which communication devices 22 to 28 are assigned to which people. See at least [0034]).
CheckMySpot provides a system where a doctor is provided a time sensitive, medical review task, upon which the claimed invention’s determination that a task has not been acted on after a period of time and provision of information to a supervisor based on that determination can be seen as an improvement. However, LaPlante demonstrates that the prior art already knew of sending a doctor patient information, determining that the doctor has not acted on the information within a period of time, and forwarding the patient information to the doctor’s supervisor. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied LaPlante’s techniques to CheckMySpot’s system by determining that the first provider has not acted on a case with a time period, and providing that case to the first provider’s supervisor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of LaPlante would have resulted in an improved system which would be more likely to provide customers with quick results for their time sensitive medical issues. As such, the application of LaPlante, 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 LaPlante.
Regarding Claim 2: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes obvious the above limitations. As previously noted in combination with CheckMySpot, LaPlante teaches prior to receiving the data from the first provider computing device, determining that more than a second predetermined amount of time has passed since the patient data were received; determining that the action has not been received from the first provider computing device; providing the second provider computing device associated with the supervisory provider with the patient data (FIG. 16 further illustrates the present invention. The total interval time from event A to event B is 37 minutes. Since 21 to 40 minutes are acceptable, a 3 is assigned as a interval efficiency rating. Shortly after Event A, a initial device alert is sent to a portable device. For example, a patient's triage information is sent to a clinician's portable device. No efficiency points are deducted for this message. If the clinician does not respond, then a first redundant alert is sent about midway during the interval. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, efficiency points are deducted from the interval efficiency rating as a result of the first redundant alert being issued. Preferably 0.5 points are deducted. If the clinician still does not respond, then a second redundant alert is sent by the system of the present invention. More points are deducted as a result of the second alert being sent. If an escalation alert needs to be sent, for example, to the clinician's supervisor, even more efficiency points are deducted from the interval efficiency rating. See at least [0080]. Also: The passage of time without the detection of an expected event in step 34 can also generate another type of communication in step 40. This is a redundant, back-up communication. Generally, when a second, repeated communication does not generate an expected event, the system of the present invention causes a redundant communication to occur in step 40. Depending on the situation and the rules of communication set up by the system of the present invention, a redundant communication in step 40 may involve retransmitting the communication to the same communication devices as well as sending the communication to additional communication devices to ensure that the communication has been received. Thus, a redundant communication in step 40 may simply involve transmitting the communication to more people and more communication devices 22 to 28. It may also involve transmitting the communication to supervisors of the people that received the original communication. To do this, the system of the present invention maintains a list of which communication devices 22 to 28 are assigned to which people. See at least [0034]). The motivation to combine CheckMySpot and LaPlante is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 4: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 and LaPlante 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 LaPlante.
Regarding Claim 11: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes 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 in view of LaPlante makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses 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”).
Regarding Claim 21: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein monitoring whether case data has been received comprises determining whether the record has been updated with 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”)
Regarding Claim 22: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, CheckMySpot discloses wherein the second provider computing device is selected based on availability of a provider associated with the second provider computing device (“download the check my spot app today and get your suspicious skin spot reviewed by a dermatologist in 24 hours” See at least 7:08-7:15. Note MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding Claim 23: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes obvious the above limitations. As previously noted in combination with CheckMySpot, LaPlante teaches wherein providing the second provider computing device with access to the record comprises providing concurrent access to both the first provider computing device and the second provider computing device (The passage of time without the detection of an expected event in step 34 can also generate another type of communication in step 40. This is a redundant, back-up communication. Generally, when a second, repeated communication does not generate an expected event, the system of the present invention causes a redundant communication to occur in step 40. Depending on the situation and the rules of communication set up by the system of the present invention, a redundant communication in step 40 may involve retransmitting the communication to the same communication devices as well as sending the communication to additional communication devices to ensure that the communication has been received. Thus, a redundant communication in step 40 may simply involve transmitting the communication to more people and more communication devices 22 to 28. It may also involve transmitting the communication to supervisors of the people that received the original communication. To do this, the system of the present invention maintains a list of which communication devices 22 to 28 are assigned to which people. See at least [0034]).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of LaPlante et al. (US 2008/0010093 A1), and further in view of Khindaria et al. (US 2017/0039338 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes 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 and LaPlante suggest 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 and LaPlante 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 LaPlante and Khindaria.
Regarding Claim 8: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes 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 and LaPlante suggest 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 and LaPlante 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 LaPlante and Khindaria.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CheckMySpot (“What is CheckMySpot?”) in view of LaPlante et al. (US 2008/0010093 A1), and further in view of O’Grady (US 2016/0292807 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: CheckMySpot in view of LaPlante makes 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 LaPlante 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 LaPlante.
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 and LaPlante 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 and LaPlante. 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 LaPlante and O’Grady.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
The claims require a computing system to actively track the status of a record, evaluate temporal conditions, and automatically modify access to that record based on those conditions.
A human cannot continuously monitor whether case data has been received across distributed computing devices, evaluate elapsed time conditions in real-time, and automatically grand access to a second provider computing device in the claimed manner.
The amended claims recite a specific improvement in the operation of telemedicine computing systems, namely the ability to: track whether a provider has responded to a case; evaluate elapsed time relative to that response; and automatically escalate access to a second provider when the case remains unaddressed.
The claims are not directed to data transmission itself, but to how the system behaves in response to detected conditions, which constitutes a meaningful integration into a practical application.
The Office Asserts that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. However, the office has not provided any evidence supporting this conclusion with respect to the specific combination of limitations recite in the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the presence of a computer does not per se render claim eligible in the Mayo/Alice analysis.
Based on the statement that a human cannot “evaluate elapsed time conditions in real-time”, it appears that Applicant’s assertion is heavily reliant on the conclusion “…in the claimed manner.” However, the Mayo/Alice does not require that the entirety of a claim be performable as claimed. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) which expressly states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Further, the current and prior claims are identified as reciting a method of organizing human activity, and as such applicant’s argument regarding the performability of the claim in the human mind is irrelevant.
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 even describe the functionality of “track whether a provider has responded to a case.” There does not appear to be a technical explanation of how to implement any of the identified functionality, and as such the claims do not appear to provide any technical improvement under the Mayo/Alice analysis.
The “behavior in response to detected conditions” is part of the method of organizing human activity, and as such is not an additional element which may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner notes 1) that the current and prior office action identified specific limitations as conventional, 2) the office provides evidence that those specific limitations are conventional, 3) applicant’s argument fails to dispute that the specific limitations are conventional, 4) current USPTO eligibility guidance does not require producing evidence of conventionality for additional elements which are not identified as conventional, 5) the office action did not assert that the identified combination of additional elements are conventional. Thus applicant’s argument here demands evidence which is not required by current eligibility guidance.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11-20: The cited references do not disclose or suggest such a constrained and context-based reassignment mechanism, nor do they contemplate integrating regulatory compliance, provider availability, and conditional escalation into a unified system behavior.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the referenced features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the 103 reject has been updated with a new secondary reference.
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
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 2026-06-27
Prosecution Insights