Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/839146 application is in response to the communications filed August 19, 2024.
Claims 1-27 were initially submitted August 16, 2024.
Claims 21-27 were cancelled August 18, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method of interacting with a patient avatar comprising: receiving patient data for at least one patient, wherein the patient data comprises historical health information; generating, based on the patient data for the at least one patient, the patient avatar, wherein the patient avatar comprises a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the at least one patient. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“at a centralized server system associated with at least one of a clinician device or a patient device” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0056] of the as-filed specification describes that at least one clinician device processors can include one or more processors, such as one or more general-purpose microprocessors. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or 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 of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“graphical” and “and wherein the historical health information is visually displayed as physical characteristics of the patient avatar; displaying, on a graphical user interface associated with at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, the patient avatar, wherein displaying the patient avatar comprises displaying, based on the historical health information, most recent patient data; and in response to receiving a playback command from at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, playing back a graphical representation of a temporal evolution of the patient avatar, wherein the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises a change over time in historical health information of the at least one patient.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“graphical” and “and wherein the historical health information is visually displayed as physical characteristics of the patient avatar; displaying, on a graphical user interface associated with at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, the patient avatar, wherein displaying the patient avatar comprises displaying, based on the historical health information, most recent patient data; and in response to receiving a playback command from at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, playing back a graphical representation of a temporal evolution of the patient avatar, wherein the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises a change over time in historical health information of the at least one patient.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the historical health information comprises at least one disease symptom and wherein the physical characteristics of the patient avatar are based on the at least one disease symptom of the at least one patient, wherein the physical characteristics of the patient avatar comprise an appearance of a symptomatic patient body part, wherein the appearance comprises at least one of: a size of the symptomatic patient body part, a color of the symptomatic patient body part, a shade of the symptomatic patient body part, a texture of the symptomatic patient body part, and an icon displayed on the symptomatic patient body part.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein playing back the graphical representation of the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises displaying changing disease symptoms of the patient.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the historical health information is compiled over a temporal period.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: prompting the patient avatar with a historical health information question; and receiving an answer to the historical health information question, based on the historical health information.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the historic health information comprises therapeutic intervention data.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein playing back the graphical representation of the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises displaying changes in historical health data from a previous clinician appointment to a current clinician appointment.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: inputting a question command via the graphical user interface associated with the clinician device; and in response to receiving the question command, displaying the question command on the graphical user interface associated with the patient device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: inputting a request for a real-time conversation via the graphical user interface associated with the clinician device; and in response to receiving the request, displaying the request for a real-time conversation on the graphical user interface associated with the patient device, wherein the request includes at least an option to accept, deny, or schedule.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient data for the at least one patient is gathered by a plurality of wearable devices worn by the patient.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient avatar comprises a non-fungible token.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 12 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the clinician device further comprises a clinician identity, and wherein the clinician identity comprises a clinician private key and a clinician public key.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 13 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein receiving patient data comprises receiving encrypted patient data by the clinician public key and decrypting the patient data by the clinician private key.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 14,
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 14 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the historical health information is transmitted from a patient identity and wherein the patient identity includes a patient private key and a patient public key.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 15 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: sending the patient avatar from a patient public key to a recipient public key, wherein the recipient public key is associated with a recipient private key; comparing the recipient private key to a database of private keys, wherein the database of private keys comprises a plurality of clinician private keys and a plurality of client private keys; and based on a determination that the recipient private key is a clinician private key, sharing the patient avatar with the recipient private key.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 16 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising determining that the recipient private key is not the clinician private key and based on the determination sharing a predetermined portion of the patient avatar with the recipient private key.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 17 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising: determining a trend in historical health information, wherein the trend is defined by health guidelines to be clinically significant;” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“displaying, on the graphical user interface associated with at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, an alert of the trend, wherein displaying the alert comprises at least one of an in-avatar alert and an ex-avatar alert, wherein the in-avatar alert comprises changing avatar appearance, and wherein the ex-avatar alert comprises at least one of a symbol and a text box.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 18 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising displaying, on the graphical user interface associated with at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, the patient avatar and at least one additional avatar, wherein the patient avatar and the additional avatar are displayed side-by-side on the graphical user interface.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 19 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the patient avatar is generated based on the patient data from a first time period in the historical health information and wherein the additional avatar is generated based on the patient data for the at least one patient from a second time period in the historical health information.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 20,
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 20 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the additional avatar is generated based on additional patient data for at least one additional patient, wherein the additional avatar comprises a two-dimensional or three-dimensional graphical representation of the at least one additional patient,” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein additional historical health information is visually displayed as physical characteristics of the additional avatar.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diaz et al. (US 2020/0293174; herein referred to as Diaz).
As per claim 1,
Diaz discloses a method of interacting with a patient avatar comprising: receiving, at a centralized server system associated with at least one of a clinician device or a patient device, patient data for at least one patient:
(Paragraphs [0012] and [0045] of Diaz. The teaching describes that a 3D avatar can be viewed when the healthcare professional wears a special headset, visor, glasses, eyewear, or looks at a specially produced display, configured to display three dimensional images. The 3D avatar represents a human body in three dimensions. The 3D avatar can be used to link medical information of the patient to a specific site on the patient. For example, a patient recovering from left knee surgery may visit a physician. The physician may put on a holographic eyewear configured as described below to produce a 3D avatar image representing the patient's medical record. The physician will see a graphical indicium of a file associated with the left knee position on the avatar. The eyewear system will be able to record the position of the physician's fingers. The eyewear system can determine if the physician has touched the graphical indicium of the file image associated with the left knee. If the eyewear system determines that the physician has selected the file associated with the left knee, it may display surgery records, such as x-rays, notes, surgery details, and other information associated with the patient's left knee. This allows the system to conveniently and intuitively store medical information for a particular patient in a manner that is easy for the physician to access and understand. The holographic eyewear 106 can include a processor 506A that is in electrical communication with a memory 508A, a storage 510A, and a communication interface 512A. The memory 508A stores instructions to configure the processor 506A to perform the functions of or processes implemented by the holographic eyewear 106 when the holographic eyewear 106 is powered on. When the holographic eyewear 106 is powered off, the storage 510A stores the instructions for configuring the processor 506A to perform the functions of the holographic eyewear 106. The communication interface 512A facilitates the communications between the holographic eyewear 106 and other devices connected to the network 108, for example the 3D avatar medical information system 104.)
Diaz further discloses wherein the patient data comprises historical health information;
(Paragraph [0024] of Diaz. The teaching describes the type of data that can be included within the stored medical records 111 include text data, 2D data, 3D data, audio data, video data, or any combination thereof. The medical records 111 can include real time data, for example, real time MRI data while the data is still being collected. The medical records 111 can be text data on the severity and duration of a disease or symptom; treatment history, including drug dosage, timing, and result; and a patient's family history on the disease or symptom.)
Diaz further discloses generating, based on the patient data for the at least one patient, the patient avatar, wherein the patient avatar comprises a two-dimensional or three-dimensional graphical representation of the at least one patient:
(Paragraph [0019] of Diaz. The teaching describes a 3D avatar 102 can be displayed with medical information of a patient. The medical information of the patient can be displayed as appearing on top of or behind the 3D avatar 102. The medical information of the patient can be displayed as overlapping or adjacent the 3D avatar 102. The medical information displayed can include some or all of the patient's medical information stored in the electronic medical record system 110. The medical information displayed can be captured and recorded during the patient's current or previous doctor or hospital visits. The medical information displayed can be related to a disease, an instance of a disease, a group of related diseases, or a medical specialty.)
Diaz further discloses wherein the historical health information is visually displayed as physical characteristics of the patient avatar, displaying, on a graphical user interface associated with at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, the patient avatar, wherein displaying the patient avatar comprises displaying, based on the historical health information, most recent patient data and in response to receiving a playback command from at least one of the clinician device or the patient device, playing back a graphical representation of a temporal evolution of the patient avatar, wherein the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises a change over time in historical health information of the at least one patient:
(Paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0036], and [0037], and Figure 3 of Diaz. The teaching describes the records associated with a highlight box 202C or the records displayed or summarized in highlight box 202C, the healthcare professional 100 can “touch” a submenu content item of the “burn” category. The system may display a timeline 302 that includes information relating to the burn over time. The timeline 302 allows the healthcare professional 100 to monitor the patient's disease progression and recovery and to determine whether a different course of treatment is feasible or desirable. The timeline 302 can organize and display the medical records in a visual and intuitive way over time based on where on the body each medical issue was diagnosed. When the patient returns for a subsequent doctor visit or hospital visit, the healthcare professional 100 can examine the timeline 302 of medical records from previous visits. In some embodiments, the healthcare professional 100 can scroll through the timeline 302 to review the various medical records from the previous visits. The medical record content items 312A-312C can be text data, audio data, and video data respectively. The medical record content items 312A-312C can represent a timeline of the patient's disease progression and recovery at different time points. For example, the text data of the medical record content item 312A can be written notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a first time point, for example July 23. The audio data of the medical record content item 312B can be audio notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a second time point subsequent to the first time point, for example August 24. The video medical record, displayed as the medical record content item 312C, can include video data of the burn at a third time point subsequent to the first and second time points, for example September 15.)
As per claim 2,
Diaz discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Diaz further discloses wherein the historical health information comprises at least one disease symptom and wherein the physical characteristics of the patient avatar are based on the at least one disease symptom of the at least one patient, wherein the physical characteristics of the patient avatar comprise an appearance of a symptomatic patient body part, wherein the appearance comprises at least one of: a size of the symptomatic patient body part, a color of the symptomatic patient body part, a shade of the symptomatic patient body part, a texture of the symptomatic patient body part, and an icon displayed on the symptomatic patient body part:
(Paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0036], and [0037], and Figure 3 of Diaz. The teaching describes the records associated with a highlight box 202C or the records displayed or summarized in highlight box 202C, the healthcare professional 100 can “touch” a submenu content item of the “burn” category. The system may display a timeline 302 that includes information relating to the burn over time. The timeline 302 allows the healthcare professional 100 to monitor the patient's disease progression and recovery and to determine whether a different course of treatment is feasible or desirable. The timeline 302 can organize and display the medical records in a visual and intuitive way over time based on where on the body each medical issue was diagnosed. When the patient returns for a subsequent doctor visit or hospital visit, the healthcare professional 100 can examine the timeline 302 of medical records from previous visits. In some embodiments, the healthcare professional 100 can scroll through the timeline 302 to review the various medical records from the previous visits. The medical record content items 312A-312C can be text data, audio data, and video data respectively. The medical record content items 312A-312C can represent a timeline of the patient's disease progression and recovery at different time points. For example, the text data of the medical record content item 312A can be written notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a first time point, for example July 23. The audio data of the medical record content item 312B can be audio notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a second time point subsequent to the first time point, for example August 24. The video medical record, displayed as the medical record content item 312C, can include video data of the burn at a third time point subsequent to the first and second time points, for example September 15.)
As per claim 3,
Diaz discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Diaz further discloses wherein playing back the graphical representation of the temporal evolution of the patient avatar comprises displaying changing disease symptoms of the patient:
(Paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0036], and [0037], and Figure 3 of Diaz. The teaching describes the records associated with a highlight box 202C or the records displayed or summarized in highlight box 202C, the healthcare professional 100 can “touch” a submenu content item of the “burn” category. The system may display a timeline 302 that includes information relating to the burn over time. The timeline 302 allows the healthcare professional 100 to monitor the patient's disease progression and recovery and to determine whether a different course of treatment is feasible or desirable. The timeline 302 can organize and display the medical records in a visual and intuitive way over time based on where on the body each medical issue was diagnosed. When the patient returns for a subsequent doctor visit or hospital visit, the healthcare professional 100 can examine the timeline 302 of medical records from previous visits. In some embodiments, the healthcare professional 100 can scroll through the timeline 302 to review the various medical records from the previous visits. The medical record content items 312A-312C can be text data, audio data, and video data respectively. The medical record content items 312A-312C can represent a timeline of the patient's disease progression and recovery at different time points. For example, the text data of the medical record content item 312A can be written notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a first time point, for example July 23. The audio data of the medical record content item 312B can be audio notes and observations by the healthcare professional 100 regarding the burn at a second time point subsequent to the first time point, for example August 24. The video medical record, displayed as the medical record content item 312C, can include video data of the burn at a third time point subsequent to the first and second time points, for example September 15.)
As per claim 4,
Diaz discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Diaz further discloses wherein the historical health information is compiled over a temporal period:
(Paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0036], and [0037], and Figure 3 of Diaz. The teaching describes the records associated with a highlight box 202C or the records displayed or summarized in highlight box 202C, the healthcare professional 100 can “touch” a submenu content item of the “burn” category. The system may display a timeline 302 that includes informatio