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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on February 18, 2026 for the application filed on September 13, 2024, is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 18/409,744 filed January 10, 2024, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 18/183,932 filed March 14, 2023, which claims priority to Provisional Application Nos. 63/424,048 filed November 9, 2022 and 63/319,738 filed March 14, 2022 and is a divisional of 29/830,662 filed March 14, 2022. Claims 2, 5, 9, and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “A computer implemented method for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual metaverse environment” in lines 1 – 2 of claim 1 should be replaced with “A computer implemented method for providing a secure health consultation in a virtual metaverse environment”;
The limitation of “receiving a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment” in lines 24 – 25 of claim 1 should be replaced with “receiving a request to initiate the health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment”;
The limitation of “initiating a health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment” in lines 36 – 37 of claim 1 should be replaced with “initiating the health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment”;
The limitation of “A system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment” in lines 1 – 2 of claim 8 should be replaced with “system for providing a secure health consultation in a virtual environment”;
The limitation of “receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment” in lines 24 – 25 of claim 8 should be replaced with “receive a request to initiate the health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment”;
The limitation of “receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment” in lines 39 – 40 of claim 8 should be replaced with “receive a request to initiate the health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment”;
The limitation of “their digital avatar” in line 4 of claim 11 should be replaced with “the associated avatar”;
The limitation of “a diagnosis, a treatment, and a recommendation” in line 2 of claim 6 should be replaced with “the diagnosis, the treatment, and the recommendation”;
The limitation of “wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse” in each one of claims 1, 8, and 17 should be replaced with “wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of an associated one of the medical practitioner and the user without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse”;
The limitation of “a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user;” in claim 8 should be replaced with “a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user; and”;
The limitation of “A system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment, the system comprising:” in lines 1 – 2 of claim 8 should be replaced with “A system for providing secure healthcare consultation, the system comprising:”;
The limitation of “a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user” in lines 3 of claim 8 should be replaced with “a metaverse environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the metaverse environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 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.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in MPEP 2016(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, and 15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 8, 10 – 11, 13 – 14, and 16 are directed to a system (i.e., machine); and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., article of manufacture).
While each one of claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions on a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 recite abstract ideas. (The Office will not determine that a claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One for the mere reason that claim further recites one or more additional elements beyond the judicial exception.)
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception including an abstract ideas (i.e., a mental process). Representative claim 8 recites the mental process represented by the limitations identified in bold as:
a system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment, the system comprising:
a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user; [and]
a processor configured to:
receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment;
receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment;
automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment;
receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation;
receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner;
receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user;
wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse;
initiate a health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment, the second avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with the medical practitioner;
maintain the second avatar rendering during the health consultation;
securely transmit health-related information using data security techniques; and
securely store a diagnosis, a treatment, and/or a recommendation associated with the health consultation.
Claim 8 recites the combination of limitations identified in bold as “providing secure healthcare consultation,” “confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse,” and “connecting … the second avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with the medical practitioner.” These limitations amount to the activities of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in claim 8 itself that forecloses it from being performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. Thus, this activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 17 are directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 14 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 14, the combination of limitations in bold identified as “the virtual environment is a metaverse” in claims 2 and 9, “ensure the confidentiality and tamper-proof nature of the user's data throughout the process” in claims 3 and 10, “facilitate secure payment transactions” in claims 4 and 11, “the user's anonymity is maintained throughout the process, and the user's real-world identity is not revealed to the medical practitioner unless explicitly authorized by the user” in claims 5 and 12, “[the] diagnosis… and [the] recommendation” in claims 6 and 13, and “provide health information during the health consultation” in claims 7 and 14 define the mental process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 14 recite an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 2 – 7 and 9 – 14 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 8, and 17 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 8 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as:
a system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment, the system comprising:
a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user;
a processor configured to:
receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment;
receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment;
automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment;
receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation;
receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner;
receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user;
wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse;
initiate a health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment, the second avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with the medical practitioner;
maintain the second avatar rendering during the health consultation;
securely transmit health-related information using data security techniques; and
securely store a diagnosis, a treatment, and/or a recommendation associated with the health consultation.
Claim 8 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as “a system for providing … in a virtual environment,” “a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user,” “a processor,” “receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment,” “receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment,” “automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment,” “receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation,” “receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner,” “receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user,” “wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse,” “initiate a health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment, the second avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with the medical practitioner,” “maintain the second avatar rendering during the health consultation,” “securely transmitting health-related information using data security techniques,” and “securely storing a diagnosis, a treatment, and/or a recommendation associated with the health consultation.”
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the claim as a whole does not amount to a particular treatment or prophylaxis, but rather merely amount to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea (i.e., the mental process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user) in a generic way. Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), each claim as a whole (including these additional limitations) does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field, but rather merely provides an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e., confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). The claim as a whole only recites the idea of a desired outcome (i.e., providing sufficient security measures within virtual spaces, particularly concerning healthcare services; See Paragraphs [028] and [065] of the Specification). The claim as a whole does not provide a particular solution, including at least details on: how the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse. The claim as a whole invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the existing process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user. Each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e., confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user) on generic computer components (i.e., the processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium, the first secure token, the second secure token, etc.). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1, 8, and 17 as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(f), each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e., confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user) on generic computer components (i.e., the virtual environment, the processor, an avatar, a second avatar, first secure token, and a second secure token). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1, 8, and 17 as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), each claim includes additional limitations that are determined to not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The extra-solution activities of “receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment,” “receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment,” “receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation,” “receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner,” and “receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user” represent the well-known pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering because it is incidental to the primary process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The extra-solution activity of “securely storing a diagnosis, a treatment, and/or a recommendation associated with the health consultation” represents the well-known post-solution activity of data outputting because it is incidental to the primary process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user and thus are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1, 8, and 17 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations of the system, the virtual environment, the processor, the avatar, the second avatar, the first secure token, and the second secure token the do no more than link the abstract ideas (i.e., the mental process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the metaverse environment). Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 1, 8, and 17 as a whole does not have one or more additional limitations, individually or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements from an associated one of independent claims 1, 8, and 17 and are therefore directed to one or more abstract ideas for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. With further regard to claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16, these claims further recite additional limitations, and these additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16, the claims include additional limitations identified in bold as “securely transmitting health-related information comprises using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology” in claims 3 and 10, “using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology, wherein the user authorizes payments using their digital avatar, and the transactions are recorded on the at least one of digital ledger and blockchain” in claims 4 and 11, “providing for secure export” in claim 6 and 13, “a consumer or medical electronics device associated with the user” in claims 7 and 14, and “the dynamic rendering transformation comprises automatically reverting the session-specific avatar to the first avatar associated with the user after termination of the scheduled appointment” in claims 15 and 16. These limitations do not represent treatment or prophylaxis even at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a). The securely storing step is extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity for the main process of providing secured healthcare consultation.). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e., confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user) on generic computer components (i.e., the digital ledger, blockchain technology, etc.). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 17, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim as a whole does not provide a particular solution, including at least details on: how the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and the than insignificant extra-solution activity of mere necessary data gathering and data outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Evidence that retrieving information is well-understood, routine an conventional is provided by MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Evidence that securely acquiring security credentials from other authentication tokens and/or devicesi s well-understood, routine an conventional is provided by Buer (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0053257 A1). Evidence that personalizing avatars with custom levels of privacy (e.g., anonymity) is well-understood, routine an conventional is provided by Donfried (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0167235 A1).
Furthermore, 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 amounts to an inventive concept.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 11, and 13 – 16 are all encompassed by the abstract idea grouping of mental processes.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 are 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seguin (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0070895 A1) in view of Donfried (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0167235 A1) and NPL Campos.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 17, Seguin teaches the limitations of representative claim 8 identified in bold as:
a system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment (Abstract and Paragraph [0018] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “a system for providing secure healthcare consultation in a virtual environment” reads on the system in Seguin (Abstract and Paragraph [0018]) for determining a medical diagnosis, treatment based on a medical diagnosis, condition or event.), the system comprising:
a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user (Paragraphs [0018] and [0138] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “a virtual environment accessible by a plurality of users, wherein the virtual environment is operable to display an avatar associated with each user” reads on the healthcare environment (i.e., a virtual reality environment, such as the Metaverse) in Seguin (Paragraphs [0018] and [0138]) generated on a virtual reality platform running on at least one server, wherein the healthcare environment is accessible by a medical patient and a medical professional and is operable to display avatars associated with each user, such as the patient, the doctor, and/or other any other health personnel, such as nurses, etc.);
a processor configured to (Paragraph [0050] of Seguin):
receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment (Paragraphs [0137] – [0138] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment” reads on the avatar in Seguin (Paragraphs [0137] – [0138]) generated as a three-dimensional (3D) virtual object displayed within a virtual reality environment, such as the Metaverse.);
receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment (Paragraph [0179] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “receive appointment information associated with a scheduled appointment associated with the user, the scheduled appointment to occur within the metaverse environment” reads the activity in Seguin (Paragraph [0179]) generating, using a sensor, a blood pressure reading while a healthcare virtual avatar in Healthcare virtual environment uses a virtual representation of a blood pressure device to simulate taking a blood pressure reading of virtual avatar (to simulate a traditional visit to a doctor, i.e., scheduled appointment information).);
automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment (Paragraph [0185] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment” reads on the user virtual avatar in Seguin (Paragraph [0185]) programmed to become sick and/or to have one or more symptoms corresponding to a medical condition, event and/or abnormality.);
receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation (Paragraphs [0136] and [0138] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “receive a request to initiate a health consultation within a designated secure area within the metaverse environment, the request indicating user information and medical practitioner information associated with the health consultation” reads on the activities in Seguin (Paragraphs [0136] and [0138]) of communicating, using the user interface, with the medical diagnostic system and diagnosing certain conditions or medical events by generating, in the virtual reality environment, an avatar representing a patient and an avatar representing a doctor, wherein the avatar patient is programmed to develop symptoms and conditions to facilitate diagnosis and the avatar doctor providing interactions to provide psychological benefits for the patient.);
receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner;
receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user;
wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse;
initiate a health consultation by connecting, within the metaverse environment, the second avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with the medical practitioner (Paragraphs [0018] – [0020] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “initiating a health consultation by connecting, within the virtual environment, the avatar associated with the user and an avatar associated with a licensed medical practitioner” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraphs [0018] – [0020]) of diagnosing certain conditions or medical events by generating, in the virtual reality environment, an avatar representing a patient and an avatar representing a doctor, wherein the avatar patient is programmed to develop symptoms and conditions to facilitate diagnosis and the avatar doctor providing interactions to provide psychological benefits for the patient.);
maintain the second avatar rendering during the health consultation (Paragraphs [0018] – [0020] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “maintain the second avatar rendering during the health consultation” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraphs [0018] – [0020]) of diagnosing certain conditions or medical events by generating, in the virtual reality environment, an avatar representing a patient and an avatar representing a doctor, wherein the avatar patient is programmed to develop symptoms and conditions to facilitate diagnosis and the avatar doctor providing interactions to provide psychological benefits for the patient.);
securely transmit health-related information using data security techniques (Paragraphs [0081] to [0082] and [0085] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “securely transmit health-related information using at least one of data security techniques” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraphs [0081] to [0082] and [0085]) sending biometric data encrypted using any well-known encryption techniques (e.g., well-known asymmetric, symmetric and/or blockchain encryption techniques) to authenticate the identity of each user for the associated user devices.); and
securely store a diagnosis, a treatment, and/or a recommendation associated with the health consultation (Paragraphs [0166] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “securely store at least one of a diagnosis, a treatment, and a recommendation associated with the healthcare consultation” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraph [0166]) of storing the anonymous encrypted data (i.e., medical examinations, medical diagnoses, medical treatments, medical preventative actions, medical family diseases. Etc.) in the database.)..
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Donfried teaches the limitation identified in bold as “receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment” (Paragraphs [0015] – [0016] and [0034] of Donfried. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “receive avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar” reads on the activity in Donfried (Paragraphs [0015] – [0016] and [0034]) of collecting data from the user by data provider registration interface component and/or data collection interface component to define one or more avatars.).
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Donfried teaches the limitation identified in bold as “automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment” (Paragraphs [0041] – [0047] of Donfried. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment” reads on the activities in Donfried (Paragraphs [0041] – [0047]) of selecting, based on a classification associated with a data requester (i.e., appointment information), an avatar from multiple avatars associated with the user (i.e., dynamic rendering transformation), removing immutable personal information associated with the user from the first avatar data and/or the second avatar data, and/or swapping information for user data field associated with first avatar data and/or second avatar data for one user with corresponding information for another user (i.e., replacing the first avatar with a second avatar). First avatar data and second avatar data may be associated, respectively, with different subsets of user data (i.e., user preference information) such that first avatar data and second avatar data may be configured for different data requesters (i.e., the user preference information comprising a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment).).
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Donfried teaches the limitation identified in bold as “receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner” and “receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user” (Paragraph [0048] of Donfried. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “an authenticity indicator associated with … the medical practitioner” and “an authenticity indicator associated with … the user” reads on the data in Donfried (Paragraph [0048]) associated with a user data field associated with first avatar data (i.e., for the medical practitioner) and/or second avatar data (i.e., for the user), with the data including an indication of whether the user was authenticated by data collection interface component.).
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Ibarrola teaches the limitation identified in bold as “receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner” (Paragraphs [0032] and [0039] of Ibarrola. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “receive a first secure token providing … the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner” reads on the activity in Ibarrola (Paragraphs [0032] and [0039]) of obtaining one or more secure communication credentials, keys, tokens, certificates, etc., for the clinician device, with the secure communication credentials being stored at the clinician device and personalized authentication indicia returned to the requesting CP/CD in a secure local communication session.).
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Ibarrola teaches the limitation identified in bold as “receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user” (Paragraphs [0033] and [0039] of Ibarrola. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “receive a second secure token providing … the identity and/or credentials of the user” reads on the activity in Ibarrola (Paragraphs [0033] and [0039]) of obtaining one or more secure communication credentials, keys, tokens, certificates, etc., for the patient device, with the secure communication credentials being stored at the patient device and personalized authentication indicia returned to the requesting CP/CD in a secure local communication session.).
Seguin does not appear to explicitly disclose, but NPL Campos teaches the limitation identified in bold as “wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse” (Third Paragraph in Second Column on Page 5; and Fifth Paragraph in First Column on Page 2 of NPL Campos. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “wherein the tokens allow for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse” reads on the authentication mechanism in NPL Campos (Third Paragraph in Second Column on Page 5; and Fifth Paragraph in First Column on Page 2) employed to verify the proof of identity supplied by the patient or health professional its authenticity and validity, and safeguard the privacy and security of clinical sensitive information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the method of Seguin to include the activity of receiving avatar information associated with a first avatar to be displayed within the metaverse environment, the first avatar comprising a first graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment, automatically executing a dynamic rendering transformation based on the appointment information and user preference information, the dynamic rendering transformation replacing the first avatar with a second avatar based on the appointment information and user preference information, wherein the user preference information comprises a preferred level of anonymity to be used in association with the scheduled appointment, the second avatar comprising a session-specific graphical representation of the user to be displayed in the metaverse environment, receiving a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner, receiving a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user, as taught by Donfried (Paragraphs [0015] – [0016], [0034], and [0041] – [0048]), in order to share healthcare avatar with, for example, patients (when the user is identified as a healthcare provider) or a doctor (when the user is identified as a patient) (Paragraph [0071] of Donfried); the activity of receiving a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner, and receiving a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user, as taught by Ibarrola (Paragraphs [0032] – [0033] and [0039]), in order to provide patient health outside of a traditional clinical setting (e.g., in a doctor's office or a patient's home), increase access to care and decrease healthcare delivery costs, and decrease risk of malicious parties inappropriately accessing patient data and/or affecting the medical therapy mediated by implanted or other personal medical devices (Paragraph [0004] of Ibarrola); and to implement the tokens allowing for confirmation of the identity and/or credentials of the health consultation participants without the need to share sensitive data within the metaverse, as taught by NPL Campos (Third Paragraph in Second Column on Page 5; and Fifth Paragraph in First Column on Page 2), in order to provide strong foundations, upon which more reliable, secure, trustworthy and inter-operable eHealth applications can be built (Second Paragraph of Abstract on Page 1 of NPL Campos).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Seguin as modified by Daijavad and applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 8 teaches the limitations of representative claim 10 identified in bold as “securely transmitting health-related information comprises using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology to ensure the confidentiality and tamper-proof nature of the user's data throughout the process” (Paragraphs [0081] to [0082] and [0085] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest interpretation of “securely transmitting health-related information comprises using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology to ensure the confidentiality and tamper-proof nature of the user's data throughout the process” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraphs [0081] to [0082] and [0085]) sending biometric data encrypted using any well-known encryption techniques (e.g., well-known asymmetric, symmetric and/or blockchain encryption techniques) to authenticate the identity of each user for the associated user devices.).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Seguin as modified by Daijavad and applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 8 teaches the limitation of representative claim 11 identified in bold as “the processor is further configured to facilitate secure payment transactions between the user and the medical practitioner using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology, wherein the user authorizes payments using their digital avatar, and the transactions are recorded on the at least one of digital ledger and blockchain” (Paragraph [0135] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the processor is further configured to facilitate secure payment transactions between the user and the medical practitioner using at least one of digital ledger and blockchain technology, wherein the user authorizes payments using their digital avatar, and the transactions are recorded on the at least one of digital ledger and blockchain” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraph [0135]) of facilitating and/or securing a payment transaction using well-known blockchain techniques, i.e., cryptocurrencies may be used for any transactions, such as pay-per-use (e.g., for diagnosis), payment for treatments, payment for medication, and any other payment transaction.).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Seguin as modified by Daijavad and applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 8 teaches the limitation of representative claim 13 identified in bold as “providing for secure export the at least one of a diagnosis, a treatment, and a recommendation” (Paragraph [0090] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “providing for secure export the at least one of a diagnosis, a treatment, and a recommendation” reads on the activity in Seguin (Paragraph [0090]) of sending a message to the user device regarding the detected medical diagnosis, condition, or event, as well as and a recommended treatment, with the information being encrypted using well-known encryption techniques, i.e., well-known asymmetric, symmetric and/or blockchain encryption techniques.).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Seguin as modified by Daijavad and applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 8 teaches the limitations of representative claim 14 identified in bold as “a consumer or medical electronics device associated with the user, the consumer or medical electronics device operable to provide health information during the health consultation” (Paragraph [0015] of Seguin. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a consumer or medical electronics device associated with the user, the consumer or medical electronics device operable to provide health information during the health consultation” reads on the user device in Seguin (Paragraph [0015]) associated with the user, and the user device operable to present a display indicating the first medical diagnosis.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Third Paragraph to Fifth Paragraph on Page 2 of the Amendment filed February 18, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In the Amendment (Fifth Paragraph on Page 2), Applicant argued: the limitations of “automatically execute a dynamic rendering transformation” and “receive a first secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the medical practitioner; receive a second secure token providing an authenticity indicator associated with the identity and/or credentials of the user” are necessarily rooted in technology and cannot be performed as part of a mental process. The Office respectfully disagrees. The subject matter eligibility analysis does not state that a claim is eligible if it contains one or more limitations that are necessarily rooted in technology. See MPEP 2106.4 and 2106.5. Applicant further contended that each claim viewed as whole encompasses a computer implemented method which cannot be performed mentally nor is the equivalent of a human behavior. As described in the body of the present Final Action, the Office respectfully disagrees because the claims are directed to the mental process of confirming the identity and/or credentials of the user and the medical practitioner and determining a second avatar associated with the user, and each claim as a whole fails to recite a particular solution.
Applicant's arguments (Second Paragraph on Page 8 to Second Paragraph on Page 9 of the Amendment filed March 19, 2026) regarding the rejections of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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 VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights