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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention Group I as reflected in claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of the Application
Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024, 03/10/2025, 04/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are drawn to a machine. As such, claims 1-13 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Independent Claim 1: A system for generating an electronic medical record, the system comprising:
at least one processing device;
and at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the system to:
receive video data and audio data of the subject;
extract metadata from the video data and the audio data, the metadata including an event, one or more parameters measured during the event, and a time stamp of when the event occurs in the video data and the audio data;
and generate an electronic medical record that includes a video display area for providing playback of the video data and the audio data, and a data stream area that displays one or more events in the video data and the audio data, at least one event of the one or more events when selected causes the video display area to skip to a portion of the video data and the audio data where the at least one event occurs based on the time stamp in the metadata associated with the at least one event, and wherein the at least one event is identified based on the metadata as relevant to the clinical analysis of the subject.
Independent Claim 9: A device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject, the device comprising:
at least one processing device;
and at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to:
conduct a data acquisition session including presenting interrogatories to guide acquisition of video data and audio data from the subject;
capture the video data and the audio data from the subject;
determine one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes of the subject based on the video data and the audio data captured from the subject;
and extract metadata from the video data and the audio data, the metadata including an event, one or more parameters measured during the event, and a time stamp of when the event occurs in the video data and the audio data.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined are additional elements that fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Therefore, receiving video and audio data, extracting metadata from the video and audio data, and generating an electronic medical record are directed to managing personal interactions or personal behavior.
The dependent claim 2 is directed to conduct a data acquisition session with the subject, the data acquisition session including interrogatories to guide acquisition of the video data and the audio data.
The dependent claim 4 is directed to adapt the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured.
The dependent claim 5 is directed to determine one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes of the subject based on the video data and the audio data of the subject.
The dependent claim 6 is directed to provide a recommendation for one or more follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on the metadata extracted from the video data and the audio data.
The dependent claim 8 is directed to edit the video data and the audio data to have a predetermined duration.
The dependent claim 10 is directed to adapt the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured.
The dependent claim 12 is directed to provide a recommendation for one or more follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on the metadata extracted from the video data and the audio data.
The dependent claim 13 is directed to generate an electronic medical record that includes a data stream area that displays one or more events in the video data and the audio data, at least one event of the one or more events when selected causes to skip a portion of the video data and the audio data where the at least one event occurs based on the time stamp in the meta data.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 9 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
As such, the Examiner concludes that the preceding claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the use of a at least one processing device, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 recite the use of a at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device, in this case to receive video and audio data of the subject, extract metadata from the video and audio data, generate an electronic medical record, conduct a data acquisition session with the subject, adapt the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses, determine one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes, provide a recommendation for one or more follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions, edit the video and audio data to have a predetermined duration, only recites the at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 1 and 13 recite the use of a video display area for providing playback of the video data and the audio data, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 3 and 11 recite the use of a present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence for conducting the data acquisition session with the subject, only as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer.
Claim 7 recites the use of one or more imaging modalities of a plurality of imaging modalities including a video imaging modality, an infrared imaging modality, a depth imaging modality, and a thermal imaging modality as being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a tool to execute the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 9 recites the use of a device, acquisition of video data and audio data from the subject, and capture the video data and the audio data from the subject, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements, such as the one processing device, one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device, video display area for providing playback of the video data and the audio data, present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence for conducting the data acquisition session with the subject, one or more imaging modalities of a plurality of imaging modalities including a video imaging modality, an infrared imaging modality, a depth imaging modality, and a thermal imaging modality, device, acquisition of video data and audio data from the subject, and capture the video data and the audio data from the subject in independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements are directed to generic computer component and functions being used to perform the abstract idea.
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure in paragraph [0030] acknowledges that the “data acquisition device 200 can include a portable computing device such as a tablet computer, a smartphone, or a laptop computer having an embedded camera and microphone for capturing the image and audio data of the subject”. Paragraph [0032] discloses “one or more types of imaging modalities. For example, the camera 202 includes an RGB imaging modality 206 that can be used to capture a color video of the subject S. The camera 202 can also include an infrared imaging modality 208 that can be used to capture an infrared video of the subject S. The camera 202 can also include a depth imaging modality 210 that can be used to capture depth (D) data of the subject S as an output in real-time. The camera 202 can also include a thermal imaging modality 212 that can be used to capture a thermal imaging video of the subject S. The foregoing examples of the one or more imaging modalities of the camera 202 are not exhaustive, and it is contemplated that the camera 202 can include additional types of imaging modalities for capturing image and/or video data of the subject S. In some examples, two or more of the imaging modalities can be performed by the camera 202 simultaneous”. Paragraphs [0036] and [0045] further disclose “present interrogatories generated by artificial intelligence… the AI interactive application 226 causes the speaker 218 of the data acquisition device 200 to output audio 404 that includes interrogatories asking the subject S about their health condition”. Additionally, paragraph [0037] discloses “one processing device 222 is an example of a processing unit such as a central processing unit (CPU). The at least one processing device 222 can include one or more central processing units (CPUs). In some examples, the at least one processing device 222 includes one or more digital signal processors, field-programmable gate arrays, and/or other types of electronic circuits”. Paragraph [0039] discloses “Computer readable storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any device configured to store information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Computer readable storage media can include, but is not limited to, random access memory, read only memory, electrically erasable programmable read only memory, flash memory, and other memory technology, including any medium that can be used to store information that can be accessed by the data acquisition device. The computer readable storage media is non-transitory”. Furthermore, paragraph [0050] discloses “a video display area 600 that displays the video data 500 captured by the camera”.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-13 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay].
As per Claim 1, Hay discloses a system for generating an electronic medical record in paragraphs [0004], [0078], [0193-0194] and Fig. 13 (a video based analysis system to monitor vital signs that can integrated into an electronic health records system), the system comprising: at least one processing device in paragraphs [0078] (a processor); and at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device in paragraphs [0038] and claim 1 (a memory storing a computer program, executed by the processor), cause the system to: receive video data and audio data of the subject in paragraphs [0015], [0079], and [0181] (receive video image files and audio data of the patient); extract metadata from the video data and the audio data, the metadata including an event, one or more parameters measured during the event, and a time stamp of when the event occurs in the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0013], [0078-0079], [0083], [0176], and [0181] (extract waveform information (synonymous to metadata) from the video and audio data, the waveform information including a respiration event, respiration rate (synonymous to one or more parameters measured during the event), and a time stamp of when the respiration event occurs in the video and audio data); and generate an electronic medical record that includes a video display area for providing playback of the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0176], [0183], [0193-0194], and Fig. 13 (generating an electronic medical record includes a video display area for providing playback of the video and audio data), and a data stream area that displays one or more events in the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0078], [0178-0179], and Figs. 11-13 (a data stream that presents respiration events in the video image file and audio data), at least one event of the one or more events when selected causes the video display area to skip to a portion of the video data and the audio data where the at least one event occurs based on the time stamp in the metadata associated with the at least one event in paragraphs [0078], [0176-0180] and Figs. 11-13 (a respiration event when selected causes the video to rewind or play back the video and audio data (synonymous to skip a portion of the video and audio data), where the respiration event occurs based on the time stamp), and wherein the at least one event is identified based on the metadata as relevant to the clinical analysis of the subject in paragraph [0178] (the respiration event is identified based on the time stamp to help correlate an event to some known conditions).
As per Claim 5, Hay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the system to: determine one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes of the subject based on the video data and the audio data of the subject in paragraphs [0185], [0189], [0193], and claim 1 (determine respiration and physical parameters and conditions (synonymous to physical assessment attributes) of a patient based on the video and audio data).
As per Claim 7, Hay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the video data includes one or more imaging modalities of a plurality of imaging modalities including a video imaging modality, an infrared imaging modality, a depth imaging modality, and a thermal imaging modality in paragraphs [0081] and [0133] (the video image files includes any camera (synonymous to one or more imaging modalities of a plurality of imaging modalities) including infrared technology (synonymous to an infrared imaging modality), recording capability (synonymous to a recording capability), and thermal imaging (Examiner notes that any camera with infrared technology, recording capabilities, and thermal imaging meet the "one or more imaging modalities" limitation)).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner].
As per Claim 2, Hay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Hay does not disclose the following limitations. However, Gardiner discloses further cause the system to: conduct a data acquisition session with the subject, the data acquisition session including interrogatories to guide acquisition of the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0007] and [0019-0021] (conducting an interview (synonymous to a data acquisition session including presenting interrogatories) to get video and audio data from the patient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a system for generating an electronic medical record, as disclosed by Hay, to be combined with conducting a data acquisition session with the subject, as disclosed by Gardiner, for the purpose of accurately recording patient medical interview answers [0004-0006].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of Hong et al. (“The AI Will See You Now: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Conversational AI Medical Interviewing System”)[hereinafter Hong].
As per Claim 3, Hay and Gardiner disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Hay does not disclose the following limitations. However, Gardiner discloses further cause the system to: present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence for conducting the data acquisition session with the subject in paragraphs [0020] and [0034] (present a computer generated voice (synonymous to an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence) for conducting the interview with the patient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a system for generating an electronic medical record, as disclosed by Hay, to be combined with presenting an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence for conducting the data acquisition session with the subject, as disclosed by Gardiner, for the purpose of accurately recording patient medical interview answers [0004-0006].
The combination of Hay and Gardiner discloses a computer generated voice conducting the interview, but does not explicitly disclose of an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence. However, Hong discloses present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence for conducting the data acquisition session with the subject in the Procedure subsection on page 2 (present an avatar controlled by AI for conducting the interview (synonymous to the data acquisition session) with the participant).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the avatar controlled by AI of Hong for the computer generated voice of the combination of Hay and Gardiner. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of PREUSS et al. (US-20210233031-A1)[hereinafter Preuss].
As per Claim 4, Hay and Gardiner disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Hay and Gardiner do not disclose the following limitations. However, Preuss discloses further cause the system to: adapt the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured in paragraphs [0019-0021] (determine subsequent questions based on verbal and non-verbal responses given by the candidate such that the interview is open-ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system for generating an electronic medical record of the combination of Hay and Gardiner with adapting the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured as taught by Preuss since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably a system for generating an electronic medical record and adapting the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject during a non-structured data acquisition session.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Dao (US-20150046189-A1)[hereinafter Dao].
As per Claim 6, Hay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Hay does not disclose the following limitations. However, Dao discloses further cause the system to: provide a recommendation for one or more follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on the metadata extracted from the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0098-0099] and [0104] (provide a recommendation for medications based on the tags extracted from the audio and video data (Examiner notes that providing a recommendation for medications meets the "one or more" limitations)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a system for generating an electronic medical record, as disclosed by Hay, to be combined with providing a recommendation for a follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on metadata extracted from the video and audio data, as disclosed by Dao, for the purpose of reducing the result of potential misdiagnosis, inaccurate records, inaccurate patient's health profile, and medical malpractice [0005].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of MO (US-20150046189-A1)[hereinafter Mo].
As per Claim 8, Hay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Hay does not disclose the following limitations. However, Mo discloses further cause the system to: edit the video data and the audio data to have a predetermined duration in paragraphs [0006-0007], [0209], and Figs. 5-6 (edit the video and audio data to have a preset duration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system for generating an electronic medical record of Hay with the editing the video and audio data to have a predetermined duration as taught by Mo since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably a system for generating an electronic medical record and edits video and audio data to have a predetermined duration.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay].
As per Claim 9, Gardiner discloses a device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject in paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0023], and claim 1 (a device for providing auditing patient medical information), the device comprising: at least one processing device in paragraph [0050] (a computer); and at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device in paragraph [0051] (storage medium storing a computer program, executed by a computer), cause the at least one processing device to: conduct a data acquisition session including presenting interrogatories to guide acquisition of video data and audio data from the subject in paragraphs [0007] and [0019-0021] (conducting an interview (synonymous to a data acquisition session including presenting interrogatories) to get video and audio data from the patient); capture the video data and the audio data from the subject in paragraphs [0007], [0019-0021], and [0038] (capture video and audio recordings of the patient); and extract metadata from the video data and the audio data, the metadata including an event, one or more parameters measured during the event, and a time stamp of when the event occurs in the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0038-0039], [0049], and claim 4 (extract tags from the video and audio recordings, the tags including an event, mobility tests (synonymous to one or more parameters measured), and a time stamp of when the event occurs in the video and audio recordings).
Gardiner does not disclose the following limitations. However, Hay discloses determine one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes of the subject based on the video data and the audio data captured from the subject in paragraphs [0185], [0189], [0193], and claim 1 (determine respiration and physical parameters and conditions (synonymous to physical assessment attributes) of a patient based on the video and audio data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject, as disclosed by Gardiner, to be combined with determining one or more vital signs and physical assessment attributes of the subject based on the video and audio data captured from the subject, as disclosed by Hay, for the purpose of decreasing contributions to avoidable adverse events [0006-0012].
As per Claim 13, Gardiner and Hay disclose the device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Gardiner does not disclose the following limitations. However, Hay discloses further cause the at least one processing device to: generate an electronic medical record that includes a video display area for providing playback of the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0176], [0183], [0193-0194], and Fig. 13 (generating an electronic medical record includes a video display area for providing playback of the video and audio data), and a data stream area that displays one or more events in the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0078], [0178-0179], and Figs. 11-13 (a data stream that presents respiration events in the video image file and audio data), at least one event of the one or more events when selected causes the video display area to skip to a portion of the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0078], [0176-0180] and Figs. 11-13 (a respiration event when selected causes the video to rewind or play back the video and audio data (synonymous to skip a portion of the video and audio data), where the respiration event occurs based on the time stamp) where the at least one event occurs based on the time stamp in the metadata in paragraph [0178] (the respiration event is identified based on the time stamp to help correlate an event to some known conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject, as disclosed by Gardiner, to be combined with generating an electronic medical record that includes a video display area for providing playback of the video and audio data, a data stream area that displays one or more events in the video and audio data, the one event when selected causes the video display area to skip to a portion of the video and audio data, where the event occurs based on the time stamp in the metadata, as disclosed by Hay, for the purpose of decreasing contributions to avoidable adverse events [0006-0012].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of in view of PREUSS et al. (US-20210233031-A1)[hereinafter Preuss].
As per Claim 10, Gardiner and Hay disclose the device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Gardiner and Hay do not disclose the following limitations. However, Preuss discloses further cause the at least one processing device to: adapt the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured in paragraphs [0019-0021] (determine subsequent questions based on verbal and non-verbal responses given by the candidate such that the interview is open-ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject of the combination of Gardiner and Hay with adapting the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject such that the data acquisition session is non-structured as taught by Preuss since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably a system for generating an electronic medical record and adapting the interrogatories based on verbal and nonverbal responses given by the subject during a non-structured data acquisition session.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Hong et al. (“The AI Will See You Now: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Conversational AI Medical Interviewing System”)[hereinafter Hong].
As per Claim 11, Gardiner and Hay disclose the device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device further cause the at least one processing device to: Gardiner also discloses present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence to conduct the data acquisition session with the subject in paragraphs [0020] and [0034] (present a computer generated voice (synonymous to an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence) for conducting the interview with the patient).
Gardiner discloses a computer generated voice conducting the interview, but does not explicitly disclose of an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence. However, Hong discloses present an avatar controlled by artificial intelligence to conduct the data acquisition session with the subject in the Procedure subsection on page 2 (present an avatar controlled by AI for conducting the interview (synonymous to the data acquisition session) with the participant).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the avatar controlled by AI of Hong for the computer generated voice of Gardiner. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardiner (US-20060293924-A1)[hereinafter Gardiner], in view of Hay (US-20160210747-A1)[hereinafter Hay], in view of Dao (US-20150046189-A1)[hereinafter Dao].
As per Claim 12, Gardiner and Hay disclose the device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device.
Gardiner and Hay do not disclose the following limitations. However, Dao discloses further cause the at least one processing device to: provide a recommendation for one or more follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on the metadata extracted from the video data and the audio data in paragraphs [0098-0099] and [0104] (provide a recommendation for medications based on the tags extracted from the audio and video data (Examiner notes that providing a recommendation for medications meets the "one or more" limitations)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of device for providing a clinical analysis of a subject of the combination of Gardiner and Hay, to be combined with providing a recommendation for a follow-up tests, exams, referrals, or medical prescriptions based on metadata extracted from the video and audio data, as disclosed by Dao, for the purpose of reducing the result of potential misdiagnosis, inaccurate records, inaccurate patient's health profile, and medical malpractice [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barr P et al. (“Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient’s Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey”) (2018) teaches on the audio recording of clinic visits for patients’ personal use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTEN N WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 - 5 pm, ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on (571)270-5096. 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.
/K.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights