DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 have not been modified. Claims 5-6 and 14-15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections, pg. 8 of Remarks:
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract as the it recites a specific, technical method performed by a terminal device in cooperation with a digital assistant and the amended feature of utilizing a model inherently requires computer processing as no human can mentally “generate a prompt word input for a model” or “provide the generated prompt word input to the model to obtain an output of the model”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, the claims are no longer considered to be abstract under mental processes, as the claim recites displaying consultation options on a device interface and receiving selections of options from a user to the interface.
Examiner further notes that Applicant does not address the characterization of the claims under an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific technical improvement in how a terminal device manages health information for multiple patients through a digital assistant interface by “enabling a single user to efficiently manage health consultations for multiple different individuals”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea of managing personal health information and does not represent an improvement to the functioning of the underlying technology. This is further supported by [0003] of Applicant specification: “With the development of Internet technologies, in terms of health consultation, it is also desirable to enable people to enjoy remote and online services… Currently, some websites, terminal applications, etc., attempt to provide online health consultation services. However, in online health consultation, there is an improvement in interactivity and expertise,” which describes an improvement in interactivity with patients and providing expertise in remote healthcare scenarios. An improvement to the abstract idea does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea as the elements of multi-consulting-object selection -> health record retrieval -> prompt word input generation -> reply output represent a non-conventional non-generic arrangements of elements that provides meaningful contribution and the Office Action has not provided evidence that this combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, (interface, terminal device, digital assistant, and model in independent claim 1) are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea (multi-consulting-object selection -> health record retrieval -> prompt word input generation -> reply output) is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea of managing multiple patients and providing health consultations using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections, pg. 10 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the claim amendments.
Regarding Difference 1, Applicant argues that Kupershmidt does not teach the amended claim limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that the combination of Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the claim limitations.
Regarding “displaying, in an interaction interface associated with a digital assistant, multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects”, Fig. 4 of Jameson, below, depicts a patient selection interface. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that programming the digital assistant interface of Kupershmidt with the multiple patient selection interface of Jameson would result in a multiple patient selection interface associated with the digital assistant ([0044] of Applicant specification noting that a consulting object is a person).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding "based on receiving a selection of a consultation option associated with the first consulting object, generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user”, Kupershmidt alone teaches:
[0022], “the interface engine 200 provides an onboarding process for a user joining the digital health system 100. During the onboarding process, the interface engine 200 may provide instructions for the user to provide user information via a user interface of a client device 110, e.g., in a chatbot interface.”
[0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users.”
[0032], “The support engine 250 determines feedback to support users based on one or more of the models or monitored physiological events. Thus, the support engine 250 may personalize the feedback such that it is a relevant response to the user's specific health information and timeline of events.”
[0004], “A digital health system provides personalized health feedback to users based on various types of models. The models may define health trajectories of diseases, user behaviors, and patient-specific context. The models may be trained using machine learning techniques and using health data input by users or received from different sources of health providers such as physicians, electronic medical records, or curated literature from medical professionals.”
[0023], “ The interface engine 200 may provide personalized questions to request information regarding a particular type of health condition, e.g., during an onboarding process with a digital health assistant. The questions may be customized based on context determined from previously questions answered by a user. The digital health assistant may personalize questions based on output of one or more machine learning models, which are further described below. In an example use case to diagnose a tumor, the digital health assistant may present questions to a user such as “did you find a mass?”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets onboarding and receiving user information to enter/login to a system to encompass a selection of the consultation option with the first consultation object; the first consultation object being the user themselves. Thus, feedback received by inputting EMR data and user information provided by the user to the model encompasses the above limitation.
Regarding Difference 2, Applicant argues that Kupershmidt does not teach “generating a prompt word input for a model based on a selected consulting object’s health record and a user’s message, providing the prompt word input to the model, and generating a reply based on the model output as Kupershmidt is directed towards providing feedback to a user about a user’s own health and not about a selected third-party. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant specification recites:
[0027]: “the consulting object may be the user himself or herself, or other consulting object associated with the user.”
[0054]: “For example, the prompt word input may be a field extracted from the message 242 related to the health of the first consulting object. The generated prompt are input to the model to obtain the output of the model. For example, the output of the model may be a field for health advice or health analysis in connection with the hinting word input.”
There is no indication that the system must only be employed for third party consulting, as user’s asking questions about their own health is fully encompasses by Applicant specification.
Kupershmidt teaches:
[0051], “The digital health assistant may request and receive input from users via the chat interface.”
[0004], “A digital health system provides personalized health feedback to users based on various types of models. The models may define health trajectories of diseases, user behaviors, and patient-specific context. The models may be trained using machine learning techniques and using health data input by users or received from different sources of health providers such as physicians, electronic medical records, or curated literature from medical professionals.”
[0023], “ The interface engine 200 may provide personalized questions to request information regarding a particular type of health condition, e.g., during an onboarding process with a digital health assistant. The questions may be customized based on context determined from previously questions answered by a user. The digital health assistant may personalize questions based on output of one or more machine learning models, which are further described below. In an example use case to diagnose a tumor, the digital health assistant may present questions to a user such as “did you find a mass?”
[0038], “a user interacts with the patient models 320 via the previously described digital health assistant, which provides feedback based on output of the models responsive to the user's input (e.g., a question for information about a certain disease and associated symptoms).”
Kupershmidt’s digital assistant receives input from electronic medical records and input via a chat interface to diagnose, as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, the questions of Kupershmidt’s digital assistants are customized based on context, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean that relevant fields from the input data are extracted to inform further questioning and deterministic outputs.
Regarding the motivation to combine, Applicant argues that the combination of Kupershmidt with Jameson is insufficient as (1) they are directed towards different technical fields and purposes and (2) the combination would not yield the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), both Kupershmidt and Jameson are analogous to the instant application as all are directed towards analyzing patient data for improving patient health. Although Jameson does refer to music therapy, the music therapy functionality itself is not relied upon in the combined rejection; only the functionality of selecting a patient profile to then perform health-related data processing. As both references also are directed towards computer functionalities, one of ordinary skill in the art, when provided with the teachings of Jameson, would be fully capable of programming an interface that allows a caregiver/user to select a consulting object (patient) from a list of multiple objects, as depicted in Fig. 4 of Jameson. There would no differences in the computer architecture as all three recite performance of software functionalities on a terminal device with an interface.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding (2), Applicant argues that the combination does not teach or suggest several amended features without specific explanation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the amended 103 rejection below.
Regarding De La Huerga and Koh, these references were not and still are not applied to teach the amended claim limitations. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process and a machine
(claims 1-20). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory
categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis; device claim 10 and product claim 19 being similar to method claim 1.
Claim 1:
A method for information interaction, comprising:
displaying, in an interaction interface associated with a digital assistant, multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects;
in response to receiving a selection of a first consultation option from the multiple consultation options, receiving, by a terminal device, interactive information of a user and a digital assistant in at least one health consultation for a first consulting object, the first consulting object corresponds to the first consultation option;
extracting, by the terminal device, health information of the first consulting object based at least on the interactive information;
updating, by the terminal device, a health record of the first consulting object with the extracted health information, the user being associated with the first consulting object; and
in response to receiving a message input by the user in a current health consultation, outputting, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistant¸ the reply being generated based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message,
wherein the user is associated with a plurality of consulting objects including the first consulting object, and each consulting object has a respective health record, and wherein providing the reply of the digital assistant comprises:
in response to the current health consultation being initiated, displaying, by the terminal device, respective consultation options corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects; and
based on receiving a selection of a consultation option associated with the first consulting object, generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user,
wherein generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message comprises:
generating a prompt word input for a model based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user;
providing the generated prompt word input to the model to obtain an output of the model; and
generating the reply to the user based on the output of the model.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors of people. The claim elements are directed towards “extracting,…, health information”, “updating,…, a health record”, and “providing,…, a reply of the digital assistant¸ the reply being generated based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message”, “generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user”, “generating a prompt word input for a model based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user”, “providing the generated prompt word input to the model to obtain an output of the model”, and “generating the reply to the user based on the output of the model”, which encompasses a health consultation. Health consultations are considered to fall under the sub-grouping as managing the personal behaviors of a healthcare professional, as health consultations are a human activity that could otherwise performed by a doctor for their patient. The claim further recites a user entering a message, which manages the interaction between a user (patient) and a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II which recites wherein “certain activity between a person and a computer (…) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping”.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 19 are found to be abstract for the same reasons.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Additional elements cited in the claims:
Interface (1,11,19); terminal device (1-3,10-12,19-20); digital assistant (1,11,19); model (1,11,19); word entry link, word entry page (8); page, access link (9); at least one processing unit, at least one memory (10); non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer program, processor (19)
Any computing devices that would be able to perform the method (processing unit, processor) are taught at a high level of generality such that the claim elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic component capable of performing the claim limitations. [0033] of Applicant specification recites: “In some embodiments, terminal device 110 may communicate with server 130 to enable provision of services to applications 120 and/or digital assistant 125. The terminal device 110 may be any type of mobile terminal, fixed terminal, or portable terminal, including a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet computer, a media computer, a multimedia tablet, a personal communication system (PCS) device, a personal navigation device, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an audio / video player, a digital camera / camcorder, a television receiver, a radio broadcast receiver, an electronic book device, a gaming device, or any combination of the foregoing, including accessories and peripherals of these devices, or any combination thereof.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to computing devices as generic devices with software modules are simply being used to perform the abstract idea.
Storage mediums are also taught at a high level of generality. [0099] recites: “The memory 620 may be volatile memory (e.g., registers, caches, random access memory (RAM)), non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory), or some combination thereof. Storage device 630 may be a removable or non-removable medium and may include a machine-readable medium, such as a flash drive, magnetic disk, or any other medium, which may be capable of storing information and/or data and may be accessed within electronic device 600.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to computer readable mediums as any generic storage medium is simply applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data.
Digital assistants and models are also taught at a high level of generality. [0053] recites: “Based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message 242 entered by the user 140, a reply 244 of the digital assistant 125 to the message 242 may be generated. As an example, the reply 244 of the digital assistant 125 may be generated based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message 242 by, for example, a natural language processing technique and a machine learning algorithm. It should be understood that any suitable natural language processing technology or machine learning algorithm may be used to generate the reply of the digital assistant 125, and the embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited in this regard.” No improvements are made to digital assistants or machine learning models as any generic assistant using any generic natural language processing technology or machine learning algorithm is applied to perform the abstract idea.
Interfaces area also taught at a high level of generality. [0031] recites: “In the environment 100 of FIG. 1, if the application 120 is launched, the terminal device 110 may present the interface 150 of the application 120. The interface 150 may include various user interfaces that may be provided by the application 120.”No specific technical improvements are made to the functioning of interfaces as any generic software interface is applied to assist in performing the abstract idea of managing multiple patients and performing health consultation.
Word entry links and pages are also taught at a high level of generality. [0053] recites: “As an example, if the user 140 selects an entity word, the entry page corresponding to the entity word will be presented on the interface 300D in a form such as a pop-up window. Alternatively, the entry page corresponding to the entity word may be presented by jumping to an external page, such as a browser page. On the entry page, a medical meaning or medical interpretation of the entity word may be presented.” No improvements are made to web structures or linking mechanisms as generic presentation methods are taught for providing a patient with definitions.
Web pages and access links are also taught at a high level of generality. [0053] recites: “In some embodiments, an access link (not shown) for the health record may be provided in a page associated with the health record (e.g., interface 300D or other suitable page). As an example, the access link to the health record may be a two-dimensional code or another suitable form of link or hyperlink.” No improvements are made to web structures or linking mechanisms as generic presentation methods are taught for providing a patient with their health information.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2, 11, and 20: These claims recite wherein extracting the health information of the first consulting object comprises: extracting, by the terminal device, the health information of the first consulting object further based on at least one of: a brief summary of health consultation or an electronic medical record generated in the at least one health consultation for the first consulting object; which the terminal device at a high level of generality such that it is only applied to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a data source or type for manipulation.
Claims 3 and 12: These claims recite wherein the health record has a plurality of predetermined fields, each predetermined field indicating a corresponding information type, and wherein updating the health record of the first consulting object comprises: filling, by the terminal device, the extracted health information into a corresponding field of the plurality of predetermined fields based on information types indicated by the plurality of predetermined fields; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under the managing personal behaviors sub-grouping and mental processes, such as filling in a field on a form.
Claims 4 and 13: These claims recite wherein in the health record, the extracted health information is organized based on a timeline corresponding to the at least one health consultation; which teaches an abstract idea of organizing data into a timeline.
Claims 7 and 16: These claims recite wherein a health record of the first consulting object is updated with an occurrence of a health consultation for the first consulting object; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as updating a patient’s health record.
Claims 8 and 17: These claims recite wherein in the health record, at least one entity word is labeled with a corresponding word entry link, and each word entry link is used for accessing a word entry page corresponding to the entity word; which teaches word entry links and pages at a high level of generality.
Claims 9 and 18: These claims recite wherein at least one of the following is provided in a page associated with the health record: an access link of the health record, or an access link of the interactive information; which teaches web pages and access links at a high level of generality.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Looking at the limitations 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 provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupershmidt (US 20200194121) in view of Jameson (US 20200155789).
Regarding claim 1, Kupershmidt teaches a method for information interaction, comprising:
extracting, by the terminal device, health information of the first consulting object based at least on the interactive information ([0042], “the interface engine 200 includes a conversation engine that uses artificial intelligence algorithms or machine learning algorithms to provide a chatbot interface. The algorithms may include natural language processing techniques known to one skilled in the art.” [0023], “ The interface engine 200 may provide personalized questions to request information regarding a particular type of health condition, e.g., during an onboarding process with a digital health assistant. The questions may be customized based on context determined from previously questions answered by a user. The digital health assistant may personalize questions based on output of one or more machine learning models, which are further described below. In an example use case to diagnose a tumor, the digital health assistant may present questions to a user such as “did you find a mass?”, “what was the result of your mammogram?”, “have you done a breast ultrasound?”, “have you done a breast MRI?”, “what is your estrogen receptor status?”, or “do you take any major medications?” For a given question, the digital health assistant may provide a list of responses from which the user may select, or may allow the user to input text. ”). Examiner interprets customizing questions based on context determined from user input to encompass extracting health information.
updating, by the terminal device, a health record of the first consulting object with the extracted health information, the user being associated with the first consulting object ([0017], “The EMR data may be updated over time based on information provided by health care providers such as a user's personal care physician or a nurse, or based on information provided by a user herself or himself.” [0025], “Following an onboarding process, the interface engine 200 may continue to receive information from the user and update the corresponding user information stored in the user data store 210. For example, the user visits a doctor who prescribes a new medication. The user may provide this information and any side effects experienced as result of the new medication, in order to keep up-to-date the information of the digital health system 100.”); and
in response to receiving a message input by the user in a current health consultation, providing, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistant, the reply being generated based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message ([0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users.” [0032], “The support engine 250 determines feedback to support users based on one or more of the models or monitored physiological events. Thus, the support engine 250 may personalize the feedback such that it is a relevant response to the user's specific health information and timeline of events. The feedback may include, for example, reminders for an appointment or to pickup medication at a pharmacy, educational material describing a user's condition or symptoms, encouragement, relief for anti-social behavior, or feedback from a community of a user's family and friends.”). See the reply by Gali in Fig. 6A below.
[Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, no patentable weight is given to the contingent language of “in response to a current health consultation being initiated,…”, as a health consultation may not be initiated. However, art is provided for compact prosecution.]
PNG
media_image3.png
818
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein providing the reply of the digital assistant comprises:
based on receiving a selection of a consultation option associated with the first consulting object, generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user ([0022], “the interface engine 200 provides an onboarding process for a user joining the digital health system 100. During the onboarding process, the interface engine 200 may provide instructions for the user to provide user information via a user interface of a client device 110, e.g., in a chatbot interface.” [0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users.” [0032], “The support engine 250 determines feedback to support users based on one or more of the models or monitored physiological events. Thus, the support engine 250 may personalize the feedback such that it is a relevant response to the user's specific health information and timeline of events.” [0017], “The EMR data may be updated over time based on information provided by health care providers such as a user's personal care physician or a nurse, or based on information provided by a user herself or himself.”). Examiner interprets onboarding and receiving user information to enter/login to a system to encompass a selection of the consultation option with the first consultation object.
wherein generating the reply of the digital assistant to the message comprises:
generating a prompt word input for a model based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user (Fig. 6A; [0051], “The digital health assistant may request and receive input from users via the chat interface.” [0004], “A digital health system provides personalized health feedback to users based on various types of models. The models may define health trajectories of diseases, user behaviors, and patient-specific context. The models may be trained using machine learning techniques and using health data input by users or received from different sources of health providers such as physicians, electronic medical records, or curated literature from medical professionals.” [0023], “ The interface engine 200 may provide personalized questions to request information regarding a particular type of health condition, e.g., during an onboarding process with a digital health assistant. The questions may be customized based on context determined from previously questions answered by a user. The digital health assistant may personalize questions based on output of one or more machine learning models, which are further described below. In an example use case to diagnose a tumor, the digital health assistant may present questions to a user such as “did you find a mass?”);
providing the generated prompt word input to the model to obtain an output of the model ([0038], “a user interacts with the patient models 320 via the previously described digital health assistant, which provides feedback based on output of the models responsive to the user's input (e.g., a question for information about a certain disease and associated symptoms).”); and
generating the reply to the user based on the output of the model ([0038], “a user interacts with the patient models 320 via the previously described digital health assistant, which provides feedback based on output of the models responsive to the user's input (e.g., a question for information about a certain disease and associated symptoms).”).
Kupershmidt does not explicitly teach displaying, in an interaction interface associated with a digital assistant, multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects; in response to receiving a selection of a first consultation option from the multiple consultation options, receiving, by a terminal device, interactive information of a user and a digital assistant in at least one health consultation for a first consulting object, the first consulting object corresponds to the first consultation option; wherein the user is associated with a plurality of consulting objects including the first consulting object, and each consulting object has a respective health record, and wherein providing the reply of the digital assistant comprises: in response to the current health consultation being initiated, displaying, by the terminal device, respective consultation options corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects.
However, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson does teach
displaying, in an interaction interface associated with a digital assistant, multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects (Jameson, Fig. 4). Examiner notes that the combined computing system of Kupershmidt in view of Jameson would result in an interface as taught by Jameson being associated with the digital assistant of Kupershmidt.
PNG
media_image1.png
767
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in response to receiving a selection of a first consultation option from multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects, receiving, by a terminal device, interactive information of a user and a digital assistant in at least one health consultation for a first consulting object, the first consulting object corresponds to the first consultation option (Jameson, [0042], “When a patient's profile already exists in the music therapy application, the caregiver can choose “existing user” when initiating a music therapy session. FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface for choosing an existing music therapy patient 400. The music therapy application provides a way for the caregiver to access a profile of an existing user through the user interface. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, an option list of existing patients may be displayed to the user 401. The music therapy application provides the list of existing patients from the users stored in the database, e.g., database 105 of FIG. 1.” [0044], “In addition to setting the music session duration and volume level, the caregiver can then choose the music genre to play for the patient using the predefined stations that were previously set for the patient 503.” Kupershmidt, [0014], “A user can interact with the digital health system 100 through the client device 110, e.g., to access health feedback or interact with a digital health assistant “chatbot.”… The client application of the client device 110 can present information received from the digital health system 100 on a user interface, such as a health recommendations or a timeline of physiological events of a user.” [0013], “The computing environment includes the digital health system 100, one or more client devices 110, and one or more providers 120 each connected to a network 130.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of selecting a first consultation option from multiple consultation options that correspond to multiple consulting objects (choosing a first patient from multiple patients) and receiving interactive information of a user (predefined stations that were previously set for the patient) for initiation of a health session as taught by Jameson with the information of a digital assistant in at least one health consultation session (digital health chatbot) as taught by Kupershmidt would result in the claim limitation.
wherein the user is associated with a plurality of consulting objects including the first consulting object, (Jameson, [0042], “When a patient's profile already exists in the music therapy application, the caregiver can choose “existing user” when initiating a music therapy session. FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface for choosing an existing music therapy patient 400… For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, an option list of existing patients may be displayed to the user 401. The music therapy application provides the list of existing patients from the users stored in the database, e.g., database 105 of FIG. 1.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the patients able to be selected would be associated with the caregiver/user.
and each consulting object has a respective health record ([0058], “the system records information about a patient's music therapy sessions for a determined period of time while the patient is running a music therapy application on his or her user device 101. The music therapy application can store the recorded information in a database, e.g., database 105.” [0010], “Determining the efficacy of music therapy for the patient comprises correlating the patient's change in mood with medical metrics. Medical metrics comprise medications and dosages that the patient is currently taking, sleep patterns, eating habits, or daily activity habits. Personal metrics comprise, for each music therapy session in the defined period of time: heart rate data, mood data, or blood pressure data.” [0043], “The system uses profile information of a chosen user stored in the database 105 to populate the form.”),
and in response to the current health consultation being initiated, displaying, by the terminal device, respective consultation options corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects (Jameson, Fig. 4; Kupershmidt, Kupershmidt, [0014], “A user can interact with the digital health system 100 through the client device 110, e.g., to access health feedback or interact with a digital health assistant “chatbot.”… The client application of the client device 110 can present information received from the digital health system 100 on a user interface, such as a health recommendations or a timeline of physiological events of a user.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the respective options for display of Jameson and the initiation of a consultation of Kupershmidt would result in a programmed interface that encompasses the above claim limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
767
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kupershmidt in view of Jameson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of analyzing patient data for improving patient health. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kupershmidt with Jameson for the advantage of “choos[ing] the desired patient from the list or suggestions” (Jameson; [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt further teaches wherein extracting the health information of the first consulting object comprises:
extracting, by the terminal device, the health information of the first consulting object further based on at least one of: a brief summary of health consultation or an electronic medical record generated in the at least one health consultation for the first consulting object (Claim 10, “providing, via a chatbot interface, a request for the event data from the user; and wherein the data describing the physiological condition provided to the client device is presented via the chatbot interface.” [0049], “the interface engine 200 receives 510 event data received from at least a client device 110 of a user. The event data describes physiological events of a user, and each event may have a timestamp. The event classifier 220 classifies 520 each of the physiological events. The model engine 230 updates 530 a temporal model of physiological health of the user using the classified physiological events… Responsive to the determination of the physiological condition, the digital health system 100 (e.g., the monitor engine 240, support engine 250, or goal engine 260) provides 560 data describing the physiological condition to the client device 110 for presentation to the user. The data may be presented as a summary report or a regular health state report describing the user's health trajectories, and the digital health system 100 may provide the reports to a healthcare provider of the user (e.g., physician, nurse, caretaker, etc.).” [0038], “In addition to providing feedback to the user, the personalized temporal model 300 may also provide feedback or other information to providers 120 or to update a patent health record 350”).
Regarding claim 4, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt further teaches wherein in the health record, the extracted health information is organized based on a timeline corresponding to the at least one health consultation ([0049], “the interface engine 200 receives 510 event data received from at least a client device 110 of a user. The event data describes physiological events of a user, and each event may have a timestamp. The event classifier 220 classifies 520 each of the physiological events. The model engine 230 updates 530 a temporal model of physiological health of the user using the classified physiological events. In particular, the temporal model maps the classified physiological events to a timeline based on the corresponding timestamps.” [0038], “In addition to providing feedback to the user, the personalized temporal model 300 may also provide feedback or other information to providers 120 or to update a patent health record 350”).
Regarding claim 7, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt further teaches wherein a health record of the first consulting object is updated with an occurrence of a health consultation for the first consulting object ([0017], “The EMR data may be updated over time based on information provided by health care providers such as a user's personal care physician or a nurse, or based on information provided by a user herself or himself.” [0025], “Following an onboarding process, the interface engine 200 may continue to receive information from the user and update the corresponding user information stored in the user data store 210. For example, the user visits a doctor who prescribes a new medication. The user may provide this information and any side effects experienced as result of the new medication, in order to keep up-to-date the information of the digital health system 100.”).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 1, and 2, respectively. Kupershmidt further teaches an electronic device comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform a method, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a method ([0058], “a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable non-transitory medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described.” [0059], “Such a computer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer system bus.”).
Claims 3, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupershmidt (US 20200194121) in view of Jameson (US 20200155789) further in view of De La Huerga (US 6308171).
Regarding claim 3, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt in view of Jameson does not explicitly teach wherein the health record has a plurality of predetermined fields, each predetermined field indicating a corresponding information type, and
wherein updating the health record of the first consulting object comprises: filling, by the terminal device, the extracted health information into a corresponding field of the plurality of predetermined fields based on information types indicated by the plurality of predetermined fields.
However, De La Huerga does teach wherein the health record has a plurality of predetermined fields, each predetermined field indicating a corresponding information type (Col. 23-24, lines 63-3, “When the physician indicates a data type 1824, word processor 14 places a character or a character string in data type field 1610 indicating the data type of the record being created. In addition, wordprocessor 14 thereafter can provide fields to be filled in which are consistent with the specified data type 1824. In this case, it is assumed that "DT-1" indicates an admission report having fields 1600, 1602, 1604, 1606, 1607 and 1610.”). See Fig. 17, below, which depicts the fields having different types of corresponding information.
PNG
media_image4.png
266
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein updating the health record of the first consulting object comprises: filling, by the terminal device, the extracted health information into a corresponding field of the plurality of predetermined fields based on information types indicated by the plurality of predetermined fields (Col. 23-24, lines 56-3, “In addition, the record of FIG. 17 also includes a data type field 1610. In the present example, it is assumed that, at an earlier time, when a physician accesses wordprocessor 14 to create a record, the physician indicates the data type to the wordprocessor in some manner. Data type may be indicated by selecting a data type from a list (e.g. ecg, PET report, post op X-ray, etc.) or it may be typed or it may be indicated in any other manner. When the physician indicates a data type 1824, word processor 14 places a character or a character string in data type field 1610 indicating the data type of the record being created. In addition, wordprocessor 14 thereafter can provide fields to be filled in which are consistent with the specified data type 1824. In this case, it is assumed that "DT-1" indicates an admission report having fields 1600, 1602, 1604, 1606, 1607 and 1610.” Col. 1, lines 33-37, “ the present invention relates to a computer system for retrieving, modifying, and storing a plurality of topically, textually, or audio-visually related data records of a plurality of formats on a plurality of databases in conformance with a hypertext-linked, predefined topical organization.”).
Kupershmidt in view of Jameson further in view of De La Huerga are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient records. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kupershmidt in view of Jameson with De La Huerga for the advantage of “provid[ing] fields to be filled in” (De La Huerga; Col. 23, line 67).
Regarding claim 9, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt in view of Jameson does not teach wherein at least one of the following is provided in a page associated with the health record: an access link of the health record, or an access link of the interactive information.
However, De La Huerga does teach wherein at least one of the following is provided in a page associated with the health record: an access link of the health record, or an access link of the interactive information (Col. 6, lines 26-36, “When a data record is created and stored, the wordprocessor creates a link, in the manner of a hypertext link, between a keyword uniquely identifying the particular record and its unique address (URL) on the computer system. To this end, the wordprocessor identifies background information within the record and uses the background information and, in some cases, the keyword itself, to form the address link pointing to the record. This link points to the unique address of the record and will enable other users to retrieve the record when the same keyword is used in a request for a data record.”).
Kupershmidt in view of Jameson further in view of De La Huerga are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient records. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kupershmidt in view of Jameson with De La Huerga for the advantage of “retriev[ing] the requested record from whichever database it is stored to” (De La Huerga; Col. 2, line 66-67).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3 and 9, respectively.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupershmidt (US 20200194121) in view of Jameson (US 20200155789) in view of Koh (US 20190392926).
Regarding claim 8, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt in view of Jameson does not teach wherein in the health record, at least one entity word is labeled with a corresponding word entry link, and each word entry link is used for accessing a word entry page corresponding to the entity word.
However, Koh does teach wherein in the health record, at least one entity word is labeled with a corresponding word entry link, and each word entry link is used for accessing a word entry page corresponding to the entity word ([0080], “an entire chat conversation may be stored in an electronic medical record to memorialize all content in the chat conversation.” [0086], “FIG. 8A is an exemplary variation of a GUI 800a displaying a medical information box 810 generated by an AI medical assistant within a conversation. For example, GUI 800a may be configured to display the drug information box 810 in response to a user input 820 including the name of a drug.” [0068], “The medical assistant system may, for example, cause the most relevant content to be displayed on the user interface of the user computing device (460, 470). The most relevant medical content may be quoted directly from the medical resource database along with a citation, and presented to the user in the user interface on the user computing device… The displayed response may be accompanied by a hyperlink that, when selected, may allow the user to access additional portions of the medical content (e.g., the displayed generated response may enable a user to “click through” to view the rest of the medical content beyond the quoted content).”). See Fig. 8A, below, which provides a word entry link for the term ‘Cimetidine’ with a corresponding word entry page (link in red box).
PNG
media_image5.png
837
593
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kupershmidt in view of Jameson further in view of Koh are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical digital assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kupershmidt in view of Jameson with Koh for the advantage of “allow[ing] the user to access additional portions of the medical content” (Koh; [0068]).
Regarding Claim 17, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571)270-1360. 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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights