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 .
Notice to Applicant
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed January 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, 14-15, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 4, 7-9, 13, and 16-18 have not been modified. Claims 1-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 15, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 15, 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:
Applicant argues that the claims provide a practical application as they are inextricably tied to an improved technique for better managing the health information of consulting objects by a terminal device. Examiner notes, however, that such improvements are directed to an improvement to the abstract idea of management of health information and providing a health consultation. 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.”).
Specifically regarding usage of a terminal device, see also MPEP 2106.05(b), which recites: “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)… Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” The terminal device is a generic computing device, as previously noted on pg. 6 of the previous Office Action, which cites [0033] of Applicant specification as evidence. There are no improvements to the terminal device itself. Rather, a terminal device is programmed and applied ([0006] of Applicant specification: “The device includes 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, cause the device to perform the method of the first aspect.”) to improve upon the abstract idea of managing health information and providing a health consultation to a patient, which could otherwise be performed by a medical professional.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §102 & 103 Rejections, pg. 9 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the claim amendments.
Regarding Feature (1), Applicant argues that Kupershmidt does not teach the amended claim limitation. Applicant argument is moot as new art is applied to teach the amended claim limitation.
Regarding Feature (2), Applicant argues that Kupershmidt does not teach “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”, specifically citing [0023]. Examiner respectfully disagrees. [0023] was not relied upon to teach this claim limitation. Instead, [0030] and [0032] were. The following is copied from pg. 15 of the prior Office Action: “([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 pick up 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.)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even if [0023] was applied to teach Feature (2), Examiner notes that the cited paragraph of Kupershmidt would teach the claimed feature: “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. As a different example, responsive to determining that user is diagnosed with Crohn's granulomatous colitis, the digital health assistant may follow up with subsequent questions regarding whether the user has experienced liquid or soft stool, constipation, or abdominal pain.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a subsequent question for follow up after a user input text encompasses a reply.
Regarding De La Huerga and Koh, Applicant argues that these references do not teach Feature (1). However, they are not applied to teach Feature (1). Thus, Applicant 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:
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;
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, 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.
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”, 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 is 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”.
The above limitations also cover performance of the limitations as mental processes. The claims recite elements, underlined above, that can be performed in the mind of a person, with pen and paper, or using a generic computer. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C that teaches generic computer performing an abstract idea can also fall under mental processes. These encompass extracting health information, updating a health record, and generating a reply.
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:
A terminal device (1-3,5-6,10-12,14-15,19-20); a digital assistant (1); a model (6); a word entry link, a word entry page (8); a page, an access link (9); at least one processing unit, at least one memory (10); A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer program, a 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] of Applicant specification 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] of Applicant specification 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.
Word entry links and pages are also taught at a high level of generality. [0053] of Applicant specification 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] of Applicant specification 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 5 and 14: These claims recite wherein the user is associated with a plurality of consulting objects including the first consulting object and each consulting object having a respective health record, wherein providing, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistant comprises: in response to receiving a message input by the user in the current health consultation, providing, by the terminal device, respective consultation options corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects; and in response to receiving a selection of a consultation option associated with the first consulting object, providing, by the terminal device, 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; which teaches an abstract idea of generating a reply. This claim further teaches 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 6 and 15: These claims recite wherein providing, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistance to the message comprises: generating, by the terminal device, a prompt word input for a model based on the health record and the message entered by the user; providing, by the terminal device, the generated prompt word input to the model to obtain an output of the model; and generating, by the terminal device, the reply to the user based on the output of the model; which teaches an abstract idea of generating a reply. This claim further teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a data source or type for manipulation.
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 notes that the consulting object is a user according to [0027] of Applicant specification. Thus, requesting health information from a user is analogous to extracting health information of the first consulting object.
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_image2.png
818
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kupershmidt does not explicitly teach 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.
However, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson does teach 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.
Kupershmidt in view of Jameson 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 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 5, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt further teaches wherein the user is associated with a plurality of consulting objects including the first consulting object and each consulting object having a respective health record ([0017], “a provider 120 provides electronic medical record (EMR) data. The EMR data includes, for example, medical histories, doctor and hospital visits, medications, allergies, immunizations, medical test results, billing information, demographic data, etc., of the users.” [0040], “The community data 335 may include aggregate data for a population of users from patient health records 350 that have been anonymized.”). Examiner notes that the consulting object is a user according to [0027] of Applicant specification. Thus, the community, which a user is part of and therefore may be associated with, constitutes a plurality of consulting objects.
wherein providing, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistant comprises: in response to receiving a message input by the user in the current health consultation, providing, by the terminal device, respective consultation options corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects (Fig. 6A; [0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users.” [0024], “In addition to updating treatment information, users may also select to add or update information about a procedure (e.g., a colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, or capsule endoscopy) using the options presented by the digital health assistant.” [0032], “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.” [0023], “For a given question, the digital health assistant may provide a list of responses from which the user may select”). Examiner interprets providing personalized feedback, which may include community insights (option corresponding to the plurality of consulting objects), to encompass providing respective consultation options.
In response to receiving a selection of a consultation option associated with the first consulting object, providing, by the terminal device, the reply of the digital assistant based on the health record of the first consulting object and the message entered by the user (Fig. 6B; [0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users. In an embodiment, the model engine 230 generates patient models that are personalized for users.” [0022], “The user information may include, for example, demographics (e.g., gender, age, or ethnicity), current and historical health data (e.g., symptoms, prior surgeries, treatment, smoking, allergies, diet, or exercise), data describing health information in the user's family (e.g., hereditary conditions or genetics), psychosocial factors, employment, education, relationships, hobbies, etc.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kupershmidt in view of Jameson teaches the method of claim 1. Kupershmidt further teaches wherein providing, by the terminal device, a reply of the digital assistance comprises:
generating, by the terminal device, a prompt word input for a model based on the health record 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.” [0030], “The model engine 230 generates models that analyze user information and health data to provide personalized health feedback to users. In an embodiment, the model engine 230 generates patient models that are personalized for users.”). Please see the prompt information (blue box) and the prompted word input (yellow box) below.
PNG
media_image3.png
827
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
providing, by the terminal device, 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, by the terminal device, 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).”).
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, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHOI 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