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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 07/29/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 8, 13 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
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 1-16 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system and method for connectivity infrastructure for a telehealth platform with third-party web services.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) allow communications and block communications; receive a user request for a service provided; generate a custom uniform resource locator (URL) that includes an alphanumeric string containing a first URL and a second URL that identifies a service provided, receives the custom URL, transmits the second URL, and transmits a response received, and displays content associated with the service provided as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method organizing human but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) a telehealth system, a public communications network (PCN), a first server, a second server, a user device, a firewall, a processor and a client software, and (in claim 8) a firewall, a telehealth system, a client device, a third-party server, a telehealth server and a user device, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the telehealth system, PCN, first server, second server, user device, firewall, processor, a client software, a client device, a third-party server and a telehealth server the claims encompass method and system for relaying requests and responses to requests between different servers in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a first server, a second server, a firewall, a processor and a client software. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a firewall, a telehealth system, a third-party server and a telehealth server. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server for enabling access to medical information and/or generic computer components for performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recites the additional element of a user device and a user interface. Claim 8 further recite the additional elements of a user interface and a client device. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a telehealth system, a public communications network (PCN), a first server, a second server, firewall, processor, client software, a third-party server and a telehealth server to perform the noted steps 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”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user device, user interface and a client device were considered extra-solution activity (or alternatively generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-7 and 9-16 are similarly rejected because they either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2 and 6 further define an access control server. Claims 2 and 6 further recite the additional element of an access control server which is analyzed in the same manner as the servers above and does not provide practical application or significantly more. Dependent claims 3 and 14 further define the service to be a videoconferencing service. Dependent claim 4 further defines the videoconferencing service. The claim also recites a second user device which is analyzed in the same manner as above and does not provide practical application or significantly more. Dependent claim 5 further defines a third server. Claims 5, 11 and 15 further recites the additional element of a third server which is analyzed in the same manner as the servers above and does not provide practical application or significantly more. Dependent claim 7 further defines the first server. Dependent claim 7 further defines the first server. Dependent claims 9 and 10 further define generating the custom URL. Dependent claim 11 further defines changing the host name of the third-party server. Dependent claim 12 further defines receiving a second request. Dependent claim 13 further defines generating a second custom URL. Dependent claim 15 further defines receiving a second request, generating a second custom URL, transmitting the second custom URL, receiving a response and transmitting the response. Dependent claim 16 defines the second target source to be a medical imaging system.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyannan (US 2014/0267571), in view of Daoud (US 2012/0065996), in view of Kim (US 8583763 B1) and in further view of Trossen (WO 2016/201411).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Periyannan discloses a telehealth system that provides access to a third-web service behind a firewall, comprising: a public communications network (PCN) ([0005] teaches communication services operated in a public network environments); a first server coupled to the PCN, the first server having a first address on the PCN; a second server coupled to the PCN, the second server having a second address on the PCN ([0009] teaches IP addresses to identify servers. [0018] teaches communications 200 over a communications network 11 between a plurality of computing devices 12, one or more pharmacy coordination server(s) 14, and a plurality of pharmacy servers 16 (interpreted by examiner as first server and second server)); a user device coupled to the PCN via a firewall that is configured to allow communications between the first address and the user device and block communications between the second address and the user device ([0009] teaches IP addresses to identify servers. [0015] teaches a client application (e.g., device executing the client application, etc.) (interpreted by examiner as user device of Kulkarni above) [0004] teaches security measures (e.g., firewalls) do not permit redirects to unfamiliar servers (e.g., not on a list of approved resource addresses for a user) and [0082] teaches not all servers are accessible by a client due to firewall restrictions (interpreted by examiner as block communications between the second address and the user device) [0130] teaches networks are protected by firewalls and the firewall may be configured to only allow the client application and/or any client application to communicate with a restricted set of servers (e.g., identified by IP addresses) over their network (interpreted by examiner as allowing communication with the first server having a first address) [0131] teaches if the server fails in servicing the request, it may be assumed that the firewall blocked communication with the server);
Periyannan does not explicitly disclose, however Daoud discloses:
the user device includes a processor that executes a client software configured to: receive a user request for a service provided by the second server via a user interface of the user device (Daoud at [0016] teaches a request from the user (interpreted by examiner as the first request for services provided by the second server) [0018] teaches pharmacy coordination server 14 (interpreted by examiner as first server), computing devices 12 (interpreted by examiner as the user device) and pharmacy servers 16 (interpreted by examiner as second server) and pharmacy server 16 is associated with the preferred pharmacy store 15 of the respective user. [0024] teaches communication between the servers 14,16 and the device 12. [0025] teaches request communication 200 and response communication 200); and transmits a response received from the second server to the user device (Daoud at [0061] teaches confirmation 220 of the electronic personal health information 9 can be received from the pharmacy server 16 as a response to a confirmation request directed from the coordination server 14 to the pharmacy server 16. In other words, confirmation 220 of the electronic personal health information 9 can be sent by the pharmacy server 16 as a response to a confirmation request directed from the coordination server 14 to the pharmacy server 16. Alternatively, or in addition to, confirmation 220 of the electronic personal health information 9 can be sent by the computing device 12 as a response to a confirmation request directed from the coordination server 14 to the computing device 12 and [0062] teaches an updated communication message to server 14 (interpreted by examiner as transmits a response received from the second server to the user device)), and wherein the user device displays content associated with the service provided by the second server (Daoud at [0022] teaches a display device and [0024] teaches corresponding data content are communicated via Web pages of the Web services application 300, as displayed on the user interface of the client device. [0039] teaches services that are available are displayed).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the video conferencing of Periyannan to incorporate receiving and transmitting requests and responses as taught by Daoud, with the motivation of allowing a patient to update their own health information outside of an appointment with doctor or pharmacist (Daoud at [0005]).
Periyannan and Daoud do not explicitly disclose, however Kim discloses:
generate a custom uniform resource locator (URL) that includes an alphanumeric string containing a first URL that identifies the first server and a second URL that identifies a service provided by the second server (Kim at [claim 1] teaches first request comprising a first URL to identify a server and a second URL used to identify the server to service the second request (the examiner notes that URL are known to contain alphanumeric strings)),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Periyannan and Daoud with teaching of Kim since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare would have found it obvious to update the methods of the primary, and secondary reference using the methods, as found in the third reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
Periyannan, Daoud and Kim do not explicitly disclose, however Trossen discloses:
wherein the first server receives the custom URL from the user device, transmits the second URL to the second server (Trossen at [abstract] teaches receiving a first HTTP request that includes a first URL and transmitting a HTTP request to a server identified by the URL of the first HTTP request and receive a corresponding HTTP response and HTTP request may be received which comprises a second URL.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Periyannan, Daoud and Kim with teaching of Trossen since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare would have found it obvious to update the methods of the primary, secondary and third reference using the methods, as found in the fourth reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Periyannan further discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising an access control server that can be configured to deny access by the user device to the service provided by the second server (Periyannan at [0009] teaches IP addresses to identify servers. [0015] teaches a client application (e.g., device executing the client application, etc.) (interpreted by examiner as user device of Kulkarni above) [0004] teaches security measures (e.g., firewalls) do not permit redirects to unfamiliar servers (e.g., not on a list of approved resource addresses for a user) and [0082] teaches not all servers are accessible by a client due to firewall restrictions (interpreted by examiner as block communications between the second address and the user device) and [0131] teaches if the server fails in servicing the request, it may be assumed that the firewall blocked communication with the server).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 2.
Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Periyannan further discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the service is a videoconferencing service (Periyannan at [0015] teaches video conferencing services).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 3.
Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Periyannan further discloses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the videoconferencing service receives video from the user device via the first server and transmits the video from the user device to a second user device coupled to the PCN (Periyannan at [0005] teaches communication services operated in a public network environments [0024] teaches data streams for video conferencing and devices capable of sending and receiving data streams over a network. Participants may use proprietary or standards-based communication protocols with their devices, and the video conference system may enable a multi-party and/or point-to-point (e.g., between two endpoints) video conference session among the plurality of participant endpoints (interpreted by examiner as receives video from the user device via the first server and transmits the video from the user device to a second user device coupled to the PCN)).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 3.
Periyannan, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Daoud further discloses:
The system of claim 3, further comprising a third server that provides a clinical documentation service accessible to the user device via the first server (Daoud at [0018] teaches presentation of health related information (via the electronic communications 200) over the electronic communication network 11 to a plurality of users 57 (see FIG. 4) operating the computing devices 12 (interpreted by examiner as user device) [0064] teaches a pharmacy server 16 (interpreted by examiner as the third server) has access to a customer medical profile 50, a pharmacy event profile 52, a pharmacy product/service profile 54, and a customer registration database 56, any of which can be stored. and [0089] teaches databases typically contain aggregations of data records or files, such as sales transactions, product catalogs and inventories, and customer profiles (interpreted by examiner as clinical documentation)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the noted features of Periyannan, Kim and Trossen to incorporate the third server as taught by Daoud, with the motivation of allowing a patient to update their own health information outside of an appointment with doctor or pharmacist (Daoud at [0005]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 4.
Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Periyannan further discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the access control server can be configured to deny access by the user device to the clinical documentation service (Periyannan at [0015] teaches a client application (e.g., device executing the client application, etc.) (interpreted by examiner as user device of Kulkarni above) [0004] teaches security measures (e.g., firewalls) do not permit redirects to unfamiliar servers (e.g., not on a list of approved resource addresses for a user) and [0082] teaches not all servers (interpreted by examiner as a third server) are accessible by a client due to firewall restrictions (interpreted by examiner as deny access by the user device to the clinical documentation service, third server of Daoud) and [0131] teaches if the server fails in servicing the request, it may be assumed that the firewall blocked communication with the server).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Periyannan, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Daoud further discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a third server, wherein the first server relays a first request for the service provided by the second server to the second server and relays a second request for the service to the third server (Daoud at [0024] teaches server application 300 (interpreted by examiner as the third server) configured to provide data content (interpreted by examiner as the second request for the service) to the client device 12 that can be pushed (e.g. as a notification) and/or in response to messages 200 received from the client device 12. alternatively, or in addition to, the client application 300 could be a generic (or somewhat specialized) browser that is in communication with a Web services server application 300, such that the communications 200 and corresponding data content are communicated via Web pages of the Web services application 300, as displayed on the user interface 104 of the client device 12).
REGARDING CLAIMS 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15
Claims 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are analogous to Claims 1-7 thus Claim 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claims 1-7.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyannan (US 2014/0267571), in view of Daoud (US 2012/0065996), in view of Kim (US 8583763 B1), in view of Trossen (WO 2016/201411) and in further view of Goto (US 2003/0177236).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 8.
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Goto further discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the custom URL includes determining a host name of the third-party server using the second URL (Goto at [0003] teaches detecting host name [0006] teaches mapping a host name (domain name) of a server to a global IP address (interpreted by examiner as the second URL) and that that in general, a global IP address and a host name are communicated from a unit such as a server [0033] teaches a web server terminal of the invention comprises a management table for storing its own host name, host name detection means for extracting a host name on receipt of an access request. [0098] teaches IP address corresponding to the host name).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen with teaching of Goto since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare would found it obvious to update the methods primary, secondary, third and fourth reference using host names, as found in the fifth reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim, Trossen and Goto disclose the limitation of claim 8 and 9.
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Goto further discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein generating the custom URL includes appending a portion of the second URL to the host name of the third-party server (Goto at [0035] teaches appending a host name. [0098] teaches IP address corresponding to the host name acquired by using a DDNS server and a DNS server is assigned is appended to a transmitted packet (interpreted by examiner as appending to the host name of the second server)).
REGARDING CLAIM 11
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim, Trossen and Goto disclose the limitation of claim 9.
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim and Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Goto further discloses:
The method of claim 9, further comprising changing the host name of the third-party server to the host name of a third server (Goto at [0086] teaches IP address dynamically changing in correspondence with a host name to a web client (interpreted by examiner as the third server) so as to perform access support).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyannan (US 2014/0267571), in view of Daoud (US 2012/0065996), in view of Kim (US 8583763 B1), in view of Trossen (WO 2016/201411) and in further view of Arshad (US 2017/0011200).
REGARDING CLAIM 16
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim, Trossen disclose the limitation of claim 15.
Periyannan, Daoud, Kim, Trossen do not explicitly disclose, however Arshad further discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the second target resource is a medical imaging system (Arshad at [0111] teaches a medical imaging device).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Periyannan, Daoud, Kim, Trossen to incorporate medical imaging device as taught by Arshad, with the motivation of providing easy access to healthcare providers for non-emergency conditions thus decreasing emergency room (ER) utilization and improving continuity of care (Arshad at [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the claim objection(s), the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis/bases of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding the indefinite rejection of claims 13, 15 and 16, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-16, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Though not explicitly stated, the Examiner appears to characterize the limitations noted above as "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." (OA at 4- 5.) Applicant does not believe this is a reasonable characterization of Applicant's claims, given that the only mention of human activity or "personal behavior" recited in the claim is the initial "user request for a service" received via a user interface of the user/client device. The claim limitations noted above do not "manage" this "behavior" in any way. Rather, the systems and methods recited in the claims respond to this behavior in a specific manner. Nor do the claims implicate or even mention "relationships or interactions between people." There is but one person (i.e., the "user") implicated in Applicant's claims and the system and methods recited therein involve no organization or management of that person's behavior or relationships or interactions with people. In Applicant's claims, the user makes a request via a user interface of a user device. This request triggers a process carried out by the user device, servers, and other elements recited in the claim. The claimed systems and methods triggered by the user request make available to the user certain third-party web applications that is otherwise be unavailable to the user behind the firewall recited in the claim. This is not a method of organizing human behavior..
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to allow communications and block communications, receive a user request for a service provided, generate a custom uniform resource locator (URL), receives the custom URL, transmits the second URL, and transmits a response received, and displays content associated with the service provided in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Moreover, Applicant submits that even if the claims do recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate the idea into a practical application. By way of example, the claimed systems and methods solve problems related to computer networks, providing at least the following advantages, as recited in paragraph [0040] of Applicant's Specification (emphasis added): This configuration provides several benefits. First, the number of IP addresses that must be whitelisted in the hospital firewall is minimized. This not only simplifies network administration but also improves network security by minimizing avenues of attack from potential hackers. Second, the telehealth platform administrator can seamlessly change servers and/or vendors for a particular SaaS service without requiring action by, or even notification of, hospital IT administrators. This further reduces the administrative burden on hospital IT administrators. For example, the telehealth platform administrator may switch from one videoconferencing SaaS provider to another videoconferencing SaaS provider by merely updating the forwarding table without requiring any action on the part of the hospital IT team. This operation would not be possible if the devices 56, 58 behind the hospital firewall 62 attempted to connect directly to third-party service providers 64, 66. In addition, this configuration allows the telehealth platform administrator to control access to each third party service provider for each user of the telehealth platform. For example, the telehealth platform administrator may create access rules that allow users associated with a first hospital to access a particular third-party service provider while denying users associated with a second hospital access to that third-party service provider. Finally, this configuration allows the telehealth platform administrator to server a single point of contact with the hospital administrator for all third-party web services. As noted above, the claimed system provides firewalled users to access multiple third-party web services while requiring only a single whitelisted IP address (i.e., that of the claimed telehealth server). This represents an improvement to a technical field (i.e., computer networking).
Regarding 2, The Examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not reflect the problem/solution the Applicant argues. The claims are currently super broad and Examiner suggests making necessary amendments to the claim to reflect Applicants invention.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-16, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Periyannan does not, however teach or suggest generating a custom URL that includes an alphanumeric string that has two parts: a first URL that identifies a first server and a second URL that identifies a service provided by a second server, as claimed. Daoud fails to teach or suggest what is missing from Periyannan…None of this is information that identifies a service or target resource provided by a second server, as claimed. Nor does Daoud provide any suggestion or motivation to include this information within an alphanumeric string that also identifies a first server or telehealth server, as claimed…The Office Action admits that Periyannan, Daoud, and Stoler fail to explicitly disclose a "request [that] includes a first uniform resource locator (URL) that identifies the first server and a second URL that identifies the service provided by the second server . . .." (Office Action at 11.) The Office Action alleges that Kim teaches this limitation…Therefore, Kim fails to teach or suggest what is missing from the combination of Periyannan and Daoud... First, Applicant notes that Trossen fails to teach or suggest generating a URL that includes two URLs, which, as noted above, none of Periyannan, Daoud, and Kim, taken alone or together, teaches or suggests.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully submits that neither Periyannan nor Daoud nor Trossen nor Stoler are relied upon to teach “generate a custom uniform resource locator (URL) that includes an alphanumeric string containing a first URL that identifies the first server and a second URL that identifies a service provided by the second server”, but Kim is, see Kim at claim 1 that teaches a first URL to identify a server and a second URL used to identify the server to service the second request.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited references teach the argued feature(s).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Kannan (US 2012/0084419) discloses a system and method to balance servers based on server load status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683 /ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
