Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are currently pending. Claims 5 and 15 are canceled in the Claims filed on January 15, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: the “processing unit” recited in Claims 11-14 and 16-19.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are drawn to a method for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-14 and 16-19 are drawn to a device for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for medical recordkeeping, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A method of information interaction, comprising:
in response to detecting a digital assistant being activated, determining at least one question provided by the digital assistant to a user based on an information collection requirement of an electronic medical record, wherein the information collection requirement is pre-set according to information to be collected for the electronic medical record;
receiving interaction information during an interaction between the user and the digital assistant;
generating an electronic medical record for a consultation object based at least on the interaction information, at least part of information in the electronic medical record being determined from the interaction information; and
in response to detecting a completeness of the electronic medical record satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, presenting the electronic medical record to medical personnel to determine a subsequent operation for the electronic medical record, wherein the predetermined completeness condition is associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information;
in response to receiving a return of the electronic medical record by the medical personnel, initiating a further interaction between the digital assistant and the user; and
generating a modified electronic medical record for the consultation object based on further interaction information obtained during the further interaction between the user and the digital assistant.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of determining a question provided, receiving interaction information, generating a medical record based on the interaction information, detecting a level of completeness satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, receiving a return of the medical record, initiating a further interaction in response to the return of the medical record, and generating a modified medical record based on the information obtained from the further interaction include following rules or instructions for patient recordkeeping), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 11 and 20 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 11, and 20 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 11 recites a device comprising a memory and a processing unit that performs the method and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that implements the method when executed by a processor.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 12 recite presenting the medical record to medical personnel based on the determination that the completeness satisfies a predetermined completeness condition, Claims 3 and 13 recite receiving a confirmation of the medical record from medical personnel and storing the confirmed medical record, Claims 4 and 14 recite providing the confirmed medical record to the user, Claims 6 and 16 recite presenting an interface enabling editing of the medical record, Claims 7 and 17 recite enabling the viewing and selecting of messages between the user and the assistant and updating the medical record to incorporate the selected messages, Claims 8 and 18 recite words that link to additional information regarding the words, Claims 9 and 19 recite providing access to the medical record and/or the interaction information between the user and the assistant, and Claim 10 recites that the assistant generates a reply for the user based on a model, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Hence Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract ideas.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the fact that the medical record is electronic, the fact that the assistant is a digital assistant, and the hardware, for example a computer, necessary to enable the aforementioned functions) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of an electronic medical record and a digital assistant, which requires a computing device of some sort, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0038] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of an electronic medical record and a digital assistant, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of electronic medical recordkeeping, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the presenting of the medical record recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the interfaces presented in dependent Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17, and the providing of the links recited in dependent Claims 8-9 and 18-19), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g. the storing of the confirmed record recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the fact that the medical record is electronic, the fact that the assistant is a digital assistant, and the hardware, for example a computer, necessary to enable the aforementioned functions), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0038] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the computer hardware necessary to execute the functional limitations) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of electronic medical record data; and/or
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing electronic medical record data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the electronic medical record data from storage in order to present it to medical personnel and to determine a subsequent operation for the electronic medical record.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-19 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the presenting of the medical record recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12, and the interfaces presented in dependent Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17, and the providing of the links recited in dependent Claims 8-9 and 18-19), and/or electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing of the confirmed record recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed (US 2021/0050089) in view of Cronin (US 2020/0260955), further in view of Brownfield (US 2019/0355464).
Regarding Claim 1, Mohammed teaches the following: A method of information interaction, comprising:
determining at least one question provided by an entity to a user based on an information collection requirement of an electronic medical record (The system generates a plurality of questions for the patient to answer, wherein the questions pertain to the patient’s current mental, emotional, and physical state, e.g. see Mohammed [0191], wherein the system records the patient data instantaneously and prompts the patient when it detects that the patient has not input a complete record of patient data, e.g. see Mohammed [0063]-[0064].), wherein the information collection requirement is pre-set according to information to be collected for the electronic medical record (The system evaluates the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness (i.e. pre-set collection requirements) of the submitted patient data to determine whether or not it should prompt the patient to submit additional data, e.g. see Mohammed [0075].);
receiving interaction information during an interaction between the user and the entity (The system receives the patient-provided answers to the questions (i.e. interaction information), e.g. see Mohammed [0191], Fig. 13K.);
generating an electronic medical record for a consultation object based at least on the interaction information, at least part of information in the electronic medical record being determined from the interaction information (The system receives the responses (i.e. the interaction information) and records the responses (i.e. the record of the responses is interpreted as an electronic medical record of a consultation object) to the questions instantaneously and stores the recorded data in a patient data store, e.g. see Mohammed [0063]-[0064] and [0191].);
in response to detecting a completeness of the electronic medical record satisfying a predetermined completeness condition, presenting the electronic medical record to medical personnel to determine a subsequent operation for the electronic medical record, wherein the predetermined completeness condition is associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information (The system calculates a timeliness/accuracy/completeness (TAC) score which evaluates whether any critical data is missing from a patient record and is indicative of a patient’s progress in completing objectives, e.g. see Mohammed [0009] and [0170], wherein the objectives include lifestyle objectives including completing a report comprising questions for the patient to answer, e.g. see Mohammed [0191], Fig. 13K, compares the TAC score to a threshold, and if the TAC score does not satisfy the threshold (i.e. a completeness level is not meeting a threshold is interpreted as “satisfying a completeness condition” of, for example, “not complete”), communicates a notification to a medical provider that prompts a patient to confirm the correctness of the data (i.e. a subsequent operation for the electronic medical record), e.g. see Mohammed [0075] and [0196]. Furthermore, the data provided by the patient used to determine the TAC score include data relating to treatments for diseases (i.e. medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information), e.g. see Mohammed [0042], [0046], and [0057].)
But Mohammed does not teach and Cronin teaches the following:
wherein the entity is a digital assistant (The system includes a virtual assistant that displays a questionnaire to a patient for the patient to input answers to, wherein the patient answers are stored in an answers database, and wherein the patient answers are used to diagnose the patient and determine a subsequent course of action, e.g. see Cronin [0029], [0032]-[0033], [0036], and [0038].);
wherein the determining of the at least one question is performed in response to detecting the digital assistant being activated (The virtual assistant may be automatically activated in response to detecting answers to questions that exceed a threshold, and subsequent questions are then presented to the patient by the virtual assistant, e.g. see Cronin [0038].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Mohammed to incorporate the virtual assistant to present questions and accept responses as taught by Cronin in order to enable quick assessment of a patient and apply an appropriate response or action for the patient, e.g. see Cronin [0003].
But the combination of Mohammed and Cronin does not tech and Brownfield teaches the following:
in response to receiving a return of the electronic medical record by the medical personnel, initiating a further interaction between the digital assistant and the user (The system enables a medical provider to modify a treatment (i.e. return the electronic medical record), wherein the modified treatment may require a patient to engage in an activity, for example asking the patient to share instructions with a spouse and/or press a button confirming the patient has taken their pills (i.e. either of which may be interpreted as a further interaction between the digital assistant and the user), e.g. see Brownfield [0133]-[0138].); and
generating a modified electronic medical record for the consultation object based on further interaction information obtained during the further interaction between the user and the digital assistant (The system transmits the modified treatment data to the patient, which may prompt the patient to provide additional medical data (i.e. further interaction), for example recording (i.e. a modified electronic medical record) that the patient has taken medication in accordance with the modified treatment data, e.g. see Brownfield [0133]-[0138].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed and Cronin to incorporate the physician requesting and receiving additional data from the patient as taught by Brownfield in order to provide easy to understand reminders to prevent death, e.g. see Brownfield [0003].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1 and Mohammed further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic medical record at least comprises medical condition information related to the consultation object (The patient responses to questions (i.e. the electronic medical record of a consultation object) includes the patient’s current mental, emotional, and physical state (i.e. medical condition information), e.g. see Mohammed [0191].), and wherein presenting the electronic medical record to medical personnel comprises:
in accordance with a determination that completeness of the medical condition information in the electronic medical record satisfies a predetermined completeness condition, presenting the electronic medical record to medical personnel (The system calculates a timeliness/accuracy/completeness (TAC) score which evaluates whether any critical data is missing from a patient record and is indicative of a patient’s progress in completing objectives, e.g. see Mohammed [0009] and [0170], wherein the objectives include lifestyle objectives including completing a report comprising questions for the patient to answer, e.g. see Mohammed [0191], Fig. 13K, compares the TAC score to a threshold, and if the TAC score does not satisfy the threshold (i.e. the predetermined completeness condition being “satisfied” is that a completeness level is below a threshold), communicates a notification to a medical provider that prompts a patient to confirm the correctness of the data, e.g. see Mohammed [0075].).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1 and Cronin further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the digital assistant generates a reply for the user based on a model (The system includes a virtual assistant that presents a patient with a question, receives the responses to the question, and then presents additional questions (i.e. replies) to the patient if there are outstanding questions, e.g. see Cronin [0032]. Furthermore, in addition to displaying the additional questions, the virtual assistant may perform various actions based on the patient-supplied answers, such as providing the patient with instructions, e.g. see Cronin [0035].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed and Brownfield to incorporate the virtual assistant providing replies to the patient as taught by Cronin in order to enable quick assessment of a patient and apply an appropriate response or action for the patient, e.g. see Cronin [0003].
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, the limitations of Claims 11 and 20 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a method whereas Claim 11 recites a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory), and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage media. Specifically pertaining to Claims 11 and 20, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 11 and 20.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of Claim 12 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 2, with the sole difference being that Claim 2 recites a method whereas Claim 12 recites a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory). Specifically pertaining to Claim 12, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 2 are similarly applied to Claim 12.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield in view of Weinstock (US 2019/0295700).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Weinstock teaches the following: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to receiving a confirmation on the electronic medical record by the medical personnel, storing the confirmed electronic medical record in association with the consultation object or the user (The system includes patient physician medical templates (PPMTs) that capture physician office visit and examination information, wherein a completed PPMT that has been signed (i.e. confirmed) by a physician becomes a physician patient medical record (PPMR) and is saved to a database, e.g. see Weinstock [0026].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate the physician confirmation as taught by Weinstock in order to improve the examination, diagnosis, and treatment of patients and to improve the security of the patient data, e.g. see Weinstock [0038].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, Brownfield, and Weinstock teaches the limitations of Claim 3, and Weinstock further teaches the following: The method of claim 3, further comprising:
providing the confirmed electronic medical record in an interaction interface between the user and the digital assistant for viewing by the user (The system includes a patient centric medical data (PCMD) mobile application that enables a physician to view and analyze patient key medical information stored in a patient life medical record, e.g. see Weinstock [0037].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate enabling the user to view the medical record data as taught by Weinstock in order to improve the examination, diagnosis, and treatment of patients and to improve the security of the patient data, e.g. see Weinstock [0038].
Regarding Claims 13-14, the limitations of Claims 13-14 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 3-4, with the sole difference being that Claims 3-4 recite a method whereas Claims 13-14 recite a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory). Specifically pertaining to Claims 13-14, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 3-4 are similarly applied to Claims 13-14.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield in view of Nusimow (US 2013/0041677).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Nusimow teaches the following: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to receiving an editing operation on the electronic medical record by the medical personnel, providing a medical record editing interface to receive editing content for the electronic medical record (The system includes interface that enables a physician to access a patient record and add notes (i.e. edit) to the record, e.g. see Nusimow [0107], Fig. 6, wherein the system may lock a record and require the doctor to unlock the record in order to make changes (i.e. edit) to the record, e.g. see Nusimow [0116].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate enabling the clinician to select and edit the patient data as taught by Nusimow in order to provide a cost-effective solution for sharing patient data more easily while complying with government mandates, e.g. see Nusimow [0029].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, Brownfield, and Nusimow teaches the limitations of Claim 6, and Nusimow further teaches the following: The method of claim 6, wherein the medical record editing interface comprises a viewing entrance for a plurality of interaction messages between the user and the digital assistant, the method further comprising:
presenting the plurality of interaction messages based on a triggering operation on the viewing entrance, the plurality of interaction messages being selectable (The system interface includes a log phone call button (i.e. a triggering operation) enabling a physician to log phone calls (i.e. select interaction messages) and review messages, e.g. see Nusimow [0112] and [0115], Fig. 7.);
receiving a selection on at least one interaction message in the plurality of interaction messages by the medical personnel (The system receives a physician selection to log phone calls (i.e. selection of interaction messages) and review messages, e.g. see Nusimow [0112] and [0115], Fig. 7.);
updating the electronic medical record with the selected at least one interaction message (The logged phone calls and messages can become part of the electronic health records for the patient, e.g. see Nusimow [0112] and [0115].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate enabling the clinician to select and edit the patient data as taught by Nusimow in order to provide a cost-effective solution for sharing patient data more easily while complying with government mandates, e.g. see Nusimow [0029].
Regarding Claims 16-17, the limitations of Claims 16-17 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 6-7, with the sole difference being that Claims 6-7 recite a method whereas Claims 16-17 recite a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory). Specifically pertaining to Claims 16-17, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 6-7 are similarly applied to Claims 16-17.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield in view of Christner (US 2016/0357908).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Christner teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein in the electronic medical record, at least one entity word is annotated with a respective entry link, and each entry link is used for accessing an entry page corresponding to an entity word (The system includes a medical record that includes a diagnosis, for example diabetes, wherein the record further includes a word, for example “affirm” or “deny,” that leads a user to a page associated with the word via a link, e.g. see Christner [0028] and [0030], Fig. 3.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate the hyperlink in the patient record as taught by Christner in order to enable a medical provider to review the patient record to ensure it is as current and accurate as possible, e.g. see Christner [0007].
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of Claim 18 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 8, with the sole difference being that Claim 8 recites a method whereas Claim 18 recites a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory). Specifically pertaining to Claim 18, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 8 are similarly applied to Claim 18.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield in view of Rosenberger (US 2010/0121657).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Rosenberger teaches the following: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following:
an access link of the electronic medical record, or an access link of the interaction information is provided in a page associated with the electronic medical record (The system includes repository that aggregates patient medical records, e.g. see Rosenberger [0017], wherein the system may provide access to the patient record by sending a link to a recipient in an email and/or via a web page, e.g. see Rosenberger [0027].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Mohammed, Cronin, and Brownfield to incorporate providing access to the patient record via the link as taught by Rosenberger in order to enable secure viewing of the data by various recipients including medical providers, e.g. see Rosenberger [0040].
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of Claim 19 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 9, with the sole difference being that Claim 9 recites a method whereas Claim 19 recites a device and its associated structural limitations (i.e. the processing unit and memory). Specifically pertaining to Claim 19, Examiner notes that Mohammed teaches that the functions of the invention may be embodied as a combination of hardware and software including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, memory, and a processor, e.g. see Mohammed [0037]-[0041] and [0200], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 9 are similarly applied to Claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application, by virtue of it being implemented by a device, e.g. see pgs. 7-8 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that an invention is not patent eligible merely because it implements an abstract idea on a physical machine, e.g. see MPEP 2106(I). Additionally, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention results in a “more friendly” collection of medical record information, this does not constitute a technical improvement because this does not represent an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. For example, the claimed invention enabling the generation of a medical record more quickly, and improving the working efficiency of medical personnel, e.g. see [0031] of the as-filed Specification, represent improvements to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Mohammed is deficient because it does not teach an “information collection requirement of an electronic medical record, wherein the information collection requirement is pre-set according to information to be collected for the electronic medical record,” e.g. see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, an “information collection requirement of an electronic medical record” may be interpreted as the system setting a requirement or request for information for an EMR. This does not require, for example, specifying a particular type of data to be requested. Additionally, the information collection requirement being “pre-set according to information to be collected” may be interpreted as the system specifying beforehand that the data to be requested be evaluated against a particular criteria. As shown above, Mohammed teaches prompting the patient to submit data, e.g. see Mohammed [0063]-[0064], wherein the system may further evaluate the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of the submitted patient data to determine whether or not it should prompt the patient to submit additional data, e.g. see Mohammed [0075]. Hence Mohammed is not deficient to teach the aforementioned limitations.
Applicant further alleges that Mohammed is deficient because it does not teach subsequent operation when a condition is satisfied, e.g. see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, “satisfying a predetermined completeness condition” may be interpreted as meeting any kind of criteria regarding the completeness. As shown above, Mohammed teaches calculating a TAC score and communicating a notification to a patient when the TAC score does not satisfy a threshold, e.g. see Mohammed [0075]. That is, the TAC score not satisfying a completeness threshold satisfies the predetermined completeness condition of “not complete.” Examiner further notes that Mohammed further teaches evaluating various types of data that are below and above threshold levels, e.g. see Mohammed [0090] and [0196].
Applicant also alleges that Mohammed is deficient because it does not teach that the completeness condition is “associated with medical condition information and medical diagnosis related information,” e.g. see pg. 11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, information “associated with” medical condition information and medical diagnosis “related” information may be interpreted as any information that is related to a medical condition. As shown above, Mohammed teaches that the TAC score is calculated with regards to patient data, e.g. see Mohammed [0075], wherein the patient data collected by the system includes patient disease data, e.g. see Mohammed [0046] and [0057].
Applicant further alleges that Brownfield is deficient because it does not teach initiating a further interaction in response to a return of the electronic medical record and generating a modified electronic medical record based on the further interaction, e.g. see pgs. 11-13 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Brownfield teaches a healthcare provider declining to verify a patient treatment (i.e. the provider returns the patient’s medical record to the system) and instead modifying the treatment, wherein the modified treatment requires the patient to perform additional activities (i.e. further interaction) such as asking the patient to share instructions with a spouse and/or press a button confirming the patient has taken their pills, e.g. see Brownfield [0133]-[0138]. Additionally, the system may receive confirmation from the patient that the patient has performed the action designated by the modified treatment, and record the date and time, e.g. see Brownfield [0138].
For the aforementioned reasons, Mohammed and Brownfield are not deficient to teach the features they are cited for, and Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681