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 Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/18/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/18/2024. The submission is 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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the second clinic station”. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1. There is no second clinic station claimed in either claim 3 or 1, therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 6.
Claim 10 discloses “communicating, by a communication module of the processing subsystem” in lines 2-3 of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the processing subsystem” in claim 10.
Thus, claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a system for remote medical consultation comprising: a processing subsystem hosted on a server, and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising: a communication module configured to remotely communicate a patient with a plurality of medical assistants; a medical assistant recommendation module operatively connected to the communication module and configured to: recommend a medical assistant from the plurality of medical assistants to the patient by generating a list of medical assistants consulted by the patient and a list of the medical assistants without consultation by the patient, wherein the recommendation is based on the historic data of medical assistant; an examination module operatively coupled with the medical assistant recommendation module and configured to allow the medical assistant to remotely examine a plurality of health parameters of the patient, wherein the medical assistant is selected by the patient as recommended by a medical assistant recommendation module; a diet recommendation module operatively connected with the examination module, wherein the diet recommendation module is configured to recommend a customized diet plan based on the plurality of health parameters of the patient; and a template generation module operatively connected with the examination module, wherein the template generation module is configured to: generate a template to allow the patient to fill a diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields and access a plurality of open platforms for generating the template; and recommend the template to the patient based on an input from the medical assistant in a predefined data field, wherein the recommended template comprises of one or more customizable pre-filled data fields.
Independent Claim 10 discloses a method for operating a system for a remote medical consultation comprising: communicating, by a communication module of the processing subsystem, remotely by a patient with a plurality of medical assistants; recommending, by a medical assistant recommendation module of a processing subsystem, a medical assistant from the plurality of medical assistants to a patient by generating a list of medical assistants consulted by the patient and a list of the medical assistants without consultation by the patient, wherein the recommendation is based on the historic data of medical assistant; remotely examining, by an examination module of the processing subsystem, a plurality of health parameters the patient, wherein the medical assistant is selected by the patient as recommended by a medical assistant recommendation module; recommending, by a diet generation module of the processing subsystem, a customized diet plan based on the plurality of health parameters of the patient; generating, by a template generation module of the processing subsystem, generate a template to allow the patient to fill a diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields and accessing a plurality of open platforms for generating the template; and recommending, by the template generation module of the processing subsystem, the template based on an input from the medical assistant in a predefined data field, wherein the recommended template comprises of one or more customizable pre-filled data fields.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to recommending a plurality of medical assistants and generating a template for a patient to fill out. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea.
Further, the series of un-bolded steps recited above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps recommending a list of medical assistants, examining a patient, recommending a customized diet plan, and generating a template is reasonably interpreted as at least evaluations that could be performed by a human mentally or using a pen and paper.
The two abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Independent claim 1 discloses the following additional elements:
a processing subsystem hosted on a server, and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules
a communication module configured to remotely [allow communication]
a medical assistant recommendation module operatively connected to the communication module
an examination module operatively coupled with the medical assistant recommendation module and configured to… remotely [examine]
a diet recommendation module operatively connected with the examination module
a template generation module operatively connected with the examination module, wherein the template generation module is configured to: … access a plurality of open platforms for generating the template
Independent claim 10 discloses the following additional elements:
a communication module of the processing subsystem, remotely [allow communication]
a medical assistant recommendation module of a processing subsystem
remotely [examining] by an examination module of the processing subsystem
a diet generation module of the processing subsystem
a template generation module of the processing subsystem… accessing a plurality of open platforms for generating the template
In particular, the processing subsystem hosted on a server, and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules and the plurality of modules as claimed (the communication module, the medical assistant recommendation module, the examination module, the diet generation module, the template generating module) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Applicant’s specification para 22 states, “the processing subsystem includes a communication module, a medical assistant recommendation module, an examination module, a template generation module, and a diet recommendation module.” Further, para 35 discloses the memory 206 includes a plurality of subsystems and a plurality of modules stored in the form of executable program which instructs the processor 202 to perform the method steps illustrated in FIG. 1. The memory 206 is substantially similar to the system of FIG.1. The memory 206 has following submodules: a communication module 108, a profile generation module 108, a medical assistant recommendation module 114, an examination module 116, a diet recommendation module 118, and a template generation module 120.” Thus, the modules are interpreted as software running on the processing subsystem wherein the processing subsystem is hosted on the server (Para 32 discloses FIG. 3 is a block diagram 200 of a computer or a server for the system for remote medical consultation in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The server includes processor(s) 202, and memory 206 operatively coupled to the bus 204.)
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that 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, the additional elements of the processing subsystem hosted on a server, and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules and the plurality of modules as claimed (the communication module, the medical assistant recommendation module, the examination module, the diet generation module, the template generating module) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2 do further disclose the additional element(s) of a communication network comprising a first communication link [which]… utilizes an interactive computer network (claim 2), a second communication link (claim 4), wherein the communication network is established through an internet website accessible by the patient (claim 7), and a database (claim 8)
In particular, the communication network comprising a first communication link [which]… utilizes an interactive computer network (of claim 2), a second communication link (of claim 4), wherein the communication network is established through an internet website accessible by the patient (of claim 7), and the database (of claim 8) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that 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, the additional elements of the communication network comprising a first communication link [which]… utilizes an interactive computer network (of claim 2), a second communication link (of claim 4), wherein the communication network is established through an internet website accessible by the patient (of claim 7), and the database (of claim 8) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatima (CliniNet: An Online Platform for all Healthcare Services) in view of Han (A Hybrid Recommender System for Patient-Doctor Matchmaking in Primary Care), further in view of FormDr (both the “HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections).
Regarding Claim 1, Fatima discloses:
A system for remote medical consultation comprising:
a processing subsystem hosted on a server, and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising: a communication module configured to remotely communicate a patient with a plurality of medical assistants; (III. A. Instant Doctor Consultation using WhatsApp API section discloses: To incorporate the Instant Doctor Consultation feature into the healthcare application, we can integrate the Whats App API, enabling users to directly Connect with doctors via WhatsApp for quick consultations; IV. Methodology section discloses: To evaluate the performance of CliniNet, various metrics were measured, including response time, resource utilization, and system stability. These metrics were assessed under different Scenarios, such as peak usage hours and varying network conditions [wherein the Applicant’s specification at Para 2 discloses, “Patients often visit doctors or medical assistants to seek advice for their health problems” therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute a doctor for a medical assistant in the system as taught by Fatima].)
a medical assistant recommendation module operatively connected to the communication module and configured to: recommend a medical assistant from the plurality of medical assistants to the patient by generating a list of medical assistants… (Once authenticated, users are presented with a list of available doctors from which they can choose for consultation)
an examination module operatively coupled with the medical assistant recommendation module and configured to allow the medical assistant to remotely examine a plurality of health parameters of the patient, wherein the medical assistant is selected by the patient as recommended by a medical assistant recommendation module; (Initiate WhatsApp chat: When a user selects a doctor, utilize the WhatsApp API to initiate a chat with the doctor's WhatsApp number. Pass relevant details such as the user's identification and the purpose of the consultation)
a diet recommendation module operatively connected with the examination module, wherein the diet recommendation module is configured to recommend a customized diet plan based on the plurality of health parameters of the patient; and (E. Diet Recommendation based on BMI index Implementing a diet recommendation feature based on the BMI (Body Mass Index) index involves calculating the users BMI and providing personalized diet suggestions. The implementation methodology is as follows: 1. User profile setup: … Collect necessary information such as height weight, age, gender, and activity level. 2. BMI calculation: Utilize the user’s height and weight information to calculate the BMI using the appropriate formula. Display the calculated BMI to the user… 4. Diet recommendation algorithm: Develop an algorithm or utilize pre-existing guidelines to recommend appropriate diets for each BMI category. Consider factors such as caloric intake, macronutrient distribution, portion sizes, and specific dietary restrictions (if any). 5. Personalized diet suggestions: Display personalized diet recommendations to the user based on their BMI category. Provide meal suggestions, plans, and food nutritional guidelines tailored to the user's needs)
a template generation module operatively connected with the examination module, wherein the template generation module is configured to: generate a template to allow the patient to fill a diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields and (Section III (C)(3) discloses User input processing: Implement a text input interface [e.g., a template] where users can enter their symptoms. Clean and preprocess the user’s input removing irrelevant information or noise, and standardize the format. E. Diet Recommendation based on BMI index Implementing a diet recommendation feature based on the BMI (Body Mass Index) index involves calculating the users BMI and providing personalized diet suggestions. The implementation methodology is as follows: 1. User profile setup: … Collect necessary information such as height weight, age, gender, and activity level [diagnostic data other than symptoms thus reading on inputting diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields].)
While Fatima discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Han discloses:
consulted by the patient and a list of the medical assistants without consultation by the patient, wherein the recommendation is based on the historic data of medical assistant; (Section VI. Results discloses we construct a baseline model with a set of ordered heuristics, which are iterated until a desired number of recommended doctors are obtained: 1) recommend the most frequently visited doctors; 2) if multiple doctors have been visited the same number of times, recommend the most recently visited among them; 3) if multiple family doctors have been visited equally frequently and recently, randomly select among them; 4) if patients have visited less than n doctors, append the most popular doctors to the list until enough recommendations are generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the list of available doctors as taught by Fatima with the customized list based on a set of ordered heuristics as taught by Han in order to provide an efficient and appealing list of doctors to the patient based on the patient’s history. Further, the Applicant’s specification at Para 2 discloses, “Patients often visit doctors or medical assistants to seek advice for their health problems” therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute a doctor for a medical assistant in the system as taught by Fatima and the system as taught by Han.
While the combination of Fatima and Han disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that FormDr HIPAA Compliant Form Builder discloses:
recommend the template to the patient based on an input from the medical assistant in a predefined data field, wherein the recommended template comprises of one or more customizable pre-filled data fields. (“Quickly Create Forms With a HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” section discloses easily create the forms you need with our HIPAA compliant form builder. Simply drag-and-drop the form elements you want [input from medical assistant in a predefined data field wherein the medical assistant is dragging elements into the predefined data field of the form] included on your forms and then customize to fit your exact needs [customizable pre-filled data fields wherein the images on the reference show “patient name” or “upload insurance photos” or “patient signature” or “address” elements that have been dragged into the form] …. Choose electronic signatures, card photo uploads, required fields and more, no coding required [example of open platform, does not require modification of the source code]. Quick. Easy. Done. “HIPAA Compliant Online Form Submissions” discloses Patients securely submit your forms online, directly to your account [thus disclosing that the forms are filled out by the patient and forms are automatically available in the medical assistant’s account for easy access in real time].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima and the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han with the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” section of the FormDr website in order to easily create the forms a user needs with the HIPAA compliant form builder to create forms that fits a user’s exact needs.
The “HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” section of the FormDr website discloses the above limitation and the “Open API and HL7” section of the FormDr website further discloses the following limitation:
access a plurality of open platforms for generating the template; and (“Achieve Greater Customization” section discloses through the use of Open API or HL7 [a plurality of open platforms], information can be send both to and from FormDr [wherein FormDr discloses quickly creating forms with a HIPAA compliant form builder and the use of Open API or HL7 (wherein the reference shows a screenshot that illustrates a post function in the Open API that creates and sends a submission). The specification does not provide further detail on the open platforms, and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, FormDr reads on this limitation]. This two-way information sharing makes the practice’s processes truly customizable, and transports the information where needed. If an even higher level of customization is needed, check out our EHR Integrations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima and the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han with the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections of the FormDr website in order to easily create the forms a user needs with the HIPAA compliant form builder to create forms that fits a user’s exact needs and to make the practice’s processes truly customizable and to transport information where needed.
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr discloses the following limitation that Fatima further discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 1, comprises a communication network comprising a first communication link between a first clinic station and the patient, wherein the first communication link utilizes an interactive computer network. (Initiate WhatsApp chat: When a user selects a doctor, utilize the WhatsApp API [communication link that utilizes an interactive computer network] to initiate a chat with the doctor's WhatsApp number. Pass relevant details such as the user's identification and the purpose of the consultation)
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr discloses the following limitation that Fatima further discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first clinic station comprises the plurality of medical assistants, wherein the patient requests remotely to the first clinic station for consultation with the medical assistant. (Initiate WhatsApp chat: When a user selects a doctor, utilize the WhatsApp API to initiate a chat with the doctor's WhatsApp number. Pass relevant details such as the user's identification and the purpose of the consultation)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr discloses the following limitation that Fatima further discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first clinic station is located remotely from a patient station to communicate information relating to the patient. (Initiate WhatsApp chat: When a user selects a doctor, utilize the WhatsApp API to initiate a chat with the doctor's WhatsApp number. Pass relevant details such as the user's identification and the purpose of the consultation)
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr discloses the following limitation that Fatima further discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 1, comprises a database configured to store the data related to recommendations, wherein the database is accessible by the medical assistant. (Section III(B)(1) discloses create a database: set up a database to store information related to doctors, their availability, and appointment bookings. Include tables for doctors, users, appointments, and any other relevant entities. Section III(B)(3) discloses doctor availability management: provide doctors with a platform to manage their availability. This may involve defining working hours, setting available appointment slots, and updating their schedules [thus reading on the database (storing doctor availability) that is accessible by the medical assistant (wherein the doctor manages their availability). Section III(C)(5) discloses provide users with supplementary information about each potential diagnosis, including symptoms, treatment options, and when to seek medical attention. Offer recommendations such as self-care measures or advice on scheduling a doctor’s appointment.)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr discloses the following limitation that Fatima further discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the template generation module is configured to automatically generate the template in real-time and (Section III (C)(3) discloses User input processing: Implement a text input interface where users can enter their symptoms [thus in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation and the prior art, this reads on automatically generating the template in real-time when the user accesses the text input interface]. Clean and preprocess the user’s input removing irrelevant information or noise, and standardize the format.)
notify a user as a notification. (Section III(A)(6) discloses real-time notifications: Implement real-time notifications to inform both users and doctors about new messages or consultation requests. This ensures that both parties are promptly notified of incoming messages and can respond in a timely manner.)
Regarding Claim 10, Fatima discloses:
A method for operating a system for a remote medical consultation comprising:
communicating, by a communication module of the processing subsystem, remotely by a patient with a plurality of medical assistants; (III. A Instant Doctor Consultation using WhatsApp API section discloses: To incorporate the Instant Doctor Consultation feature into the healthcare application, we can integrate the Whats App API, enabling users to directly Connect with doctors via WhatsApp for quick consultations; IV. Methodology section discloses: To evaluate the performance of CliniNet, various metrics were measured, including response time, resource utilization, and system stability. These metrics were assessed under different Scenarios, such as peak usage hours and varying network conditions [wherein the Applicant’s specification at Para 2 discloses, “Patients often visit doctors or medical assistants to seek advice for their health problems” therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute a doctor for a medical assistant in the system as taught by Fatima].)
recommending, by a medical assistant recommendation module of a processing subsystem, a medical assistant from the plurality of medical assistants to a patient by generating a list of medical assistants (Once authenticated, users are presented with a list of available doctors from which they can choose for consultation)
remotely examining, by an examination module of the processing subsystem, a plurality of health parameters the patient, wherein the medical assistant is selected by the patient as recommended by a medical assistant recommendation module; (Initiate WhatsApp chat: When a user selects a doctor, utilize the WhatsApp API to initiate a chat with the doctor's WhatsApp number. Pass relevant details such as the user's identification and the purpose of the consultation)
recommending, by a diet generation module of the processing subsystem, a customized diet plan based on the plurality of health parameters of the patient; (E. Diet Recommendation based on BMI index Implementing a diet recommendation feature based on the BMI (Body Mass Index) index involves calculating the users BMI and providing personalized diet suggestions. The implementation methodology is as follows: 1. User profile setup: … Collect necessary information such as height weight, age, gender, and activity level. 2. BMI calculation: Utilize the user’s height and weight information to calculate the BMI using the appropriate formula. Display the calculated BMI to the user… 4. Diet recommendation algorithm: Develop an algorithm or utilize pre-existing guidelines to recommend appropriate diets for each BMI category. Consider factors such as caloric intake, macronutrient distribution, portion sizes, and specific dietary restrictions (if any). 5. Personalized diet suggestions: Display personalized diet recommendations to the user based on their BMI category. Provide meal suggestions, plans, and food nutritional guidelines tailored to the user's needs)
generating, by a template generation module of the processing subsystem, generate a template to allow the patient to fill a diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields and (Section III (C)(3) discloses User input processing: Implement a text input interface where users can enter their symptoms. Clean and preprocess the user’s input removing irrelevant information or noise, and standardize the format. E. Diet Recommendation based on BMI index Implementing a diet recommendation feature based on the BMI (Body Mass Index) index involves calculating the users BMI and providing personalized diet suggestions. The implementation methodology is as follows: 1. User profile setup: … Collect necessary information such as height weight, age, gender, and activity level [diagnostic data other than symptoms thus reading on inputting diagnostic data in a plurality of data fields].)
While Fatima discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Han discloses:
generating a list of medical assistants consulted by the patient and a list of the medical assistants without consultation by the patient, wherein the recommendation is based on the historic data of medical assistant; (Section VI. Results discloses we construct a baseline model with a set of ordered heuristics, which are iterated until a desired number of recommended doctors are obtained: 1) recommend the most frequently visited doctors; 2) if multiple doctors have been visited the same number of times, recommend the most recently visited among them; 3) if multiple family doctors have been visited equally frequently and recently, randomly select among them; 4) if patients have visited less than n doctors, append the most popular doctors to the list until enough recommendations are generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the list of available doctors as taught by Fatima with the customized list based on a set of ordered heuristics as taught by Han in order to provide an efficient and appealing list of doctors to the patient based on the patient’s history. Further, the Applicant’s specification at Para 2 discloses, “Patients often visit doctors or medical assistants to seek advice for their health problems” therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute a doctor for a medical assistant in the system as taught by Fatima and the system as taught by Han.
While the combination of Fatima and Han disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that FormDr HIPAA Compliant Form Builder discloses:
recommending, by the template generation module of the processing subsystem, the template based on an input from the medical assistant in a predefined data field, wherein the recommended template comprises of one or more customizable pre-filled data fields. (“Quickly Create Forms With a HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” section discloses easily create the forms you need with our HIPAA compliant form builder. Simply drag-and-drop the form elements you want [input from medical assistant in a predefined data field wherein the medical assistant is dragging elements into the predefined data field of the form] included on your forms and then customize to fit your exact needs [customizable pre-filled data fields wherein the images on the reference show “patient name” or “upload insurance photos” or “patient signature” or “address” elements that have been dragged into the form] …. Choose electronic signatures, card photo uploads, required fields and more, no coding required [example of open platform, does not require modification of the source code]. Quick. Easy. Done. “HIPAA Compliant Online Form Submissions” discloses Patients securely submit your forms online, directly to your account [thus disclosing that the forms are filled out by the patient and forms are automatically available in the medical assistant’s account for easy access in real time].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima and the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han with the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” section of the FormDr website in order to easily create the forms a user needs with the HIPAA compliant form builder to create forms that fits a user’s exact needs.
The “HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” section of the FormDr website discloses the above limitation and the “Open API and HL7” section of the FormDr website further discloses the following limitation:
accessing a plurality of open platforms for generating the template; and (“Achieve Greater Customization” section discloses through the use of Open API or HL7 [a plurality of open platforms], information can be send both to and from FormDr [wherein FormDr discloses quickly creating forms with a HIPAA compliant form builder and the use of Open API or HL7 (wherein the reference shows a screenshot that illustrates a post function in the Open API that creates and sends a submission). The specification does not provide further detail on the open platforms, and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, FormDr reads on this limitation]. This two-way information sharing makes the practice’s processes truly customizable, and transports the information where needed. If an even higher level of customization is needed, check out our EHR Integrations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima and the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han with the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections of the FormDr website in order to easily create the forms a user needs with the HIPAA compliant form builder to create forms that fits a user’s exact needs and to make the practice’s processes truly customizable and to transport information where needed.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatima (CliniNet: An Online Platform for all Healthcare Services) in view of Han (A Hybrid Recommender System for Patient-Doctor Matchmaking in Primary Care), further in view of FormDr (both the “HIPAA Compliant Form Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections) and RU 116662 U1.
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr does not fully disclose the following limitation that RU 116662 U1 discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the communication network comprises a second communication link between a second clinic station and the first medical assistant for medical information exchange with the first clinic station, wherein the second clinic station comprises a plurality of medical personnels. (Page 5, para 5 discloses if necessary, for the doctor to establish an accurate diagnosis with the PM, a request is made to the server to establish or clarify the diagnosis on the part of the consultant and develop recommendations on request using the previously entered patient data [communication link between a second clinic station and the first clinic station], placed in the patient database in the documentation unit. The consultant carries out the diagnosis and development of recommendations using his accumulated experience and / or after searching for information on databases with the transfer of the necessary information to the RM. In difficult situations, the specialist consultant himself goes to the operational consultation unit with specialists from leading medical institutions [a plurality of medical personnels wherein the consulted specialists are from other locations (remote) from the initial specialist consultant and thus discloses communicating with medical personnel from another clinic station] to obtain the latest data on the patient’s disease on-line or in delayed mode. Consultations are conducted on the basis of analysis methods and recognition of complex situations in automatic mode, including on the basis of the analysis of typical errors. The results of the consultations replenish the database of a particular patient with entering them into his electronic card and electronic journals.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima, the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han and the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections of the FormDr website with the advisory diagnostic system in the field of telemedicine as taught by RU 116662 U1 in order to provide telemedicine capabilities to a plurality of users to provide further expertise for a patient’s situation to output the most accurate information to a patient. Further, the Applicant’s specification at Para 2 discloses, “Patients often visit doctors or medical assistants to seek advice for their health problems” therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute a doctor for a medical assistant in the system as taught by Fatima and the system as taught by Han.
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 3 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Fatima, Han, and FormDr does not fully disclose the following limitation that RU 116662 U1 discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second clinic station conducts an examination of the patient and collects a second set of information of the patient. (Page 5, para 5 discloses if necessary, for the doctor to establish an accurate diagnosis with the PM, a request is made to the server to establish or clarify the diagnosis on the part of the consultant and develop recommendations on request using the previously entered patient data [communication link between a second clinic station and the first clinic station], placed in the patient database in the documentation unit. The consultant carries out the diagnosis and development of recommendations using his accumulated experience and / or after searching for information on databases with the transfer of the necessary information to the RM. In difficult situations, the specialist consultant himself goes to the operational consultation unit with specialists from leading medical institutions [a plurality of medical personnels] to obtain the latest data on the patient’s disease on-line or in delayed mode. Consultations are conducted on the basis of analysis methods and recognition of complex situations in automatic mode, including on the basis of the analysis of typical errors. The results of the consultations replenish the database of a particular patient with entering them into his electronic card and electronic journals.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima, the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han and the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections of the FormDr website with the advisory diagnostic system in the field of telemedicine as taught by RU 116662 U1 in order to provide telemedicine capabilities to a plurality of users to provide further expertise for a patient’s situation to output the most accurate information to a patient.
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Fatima discloses a WhatsApp chat [software accessible by the patient] between the patient and the selected doctor which could be utilized on the WhatsApp internet website, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that RU 116662 U1 discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the communication network is established through an internet website accessible by the patient. (At the terminal 1 of the user access to the Internet browser for using the unified software of the system. User terminal 1 in the context of the present solution is understood to mean many terminals of such users. Terminal 1 is connected to an encrypted communication channel 3 with web server 4 via the Internet... The web server 4 has deployed software in the form of a single software core, which is necessary for the functioning of the entire system with its components, access to which for user terminals and for specialists participating in a video conference is carried out according to the SaaS model via an Internet browser [thus reading on a communication network established through an internet website].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Clininet as taught by Fatima, the hybrid recommender system as taught by Han and the “HIPAA Compliant From Builder” and the “Open API and HL7” sections of the FormDr website with the advisory diagnostic system in the field of telemedicine as taught by RU 116662 U1 in order to provide telemedicine capabilities via an internet browser that can be accessed by any device without the need to download an application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H. Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights