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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application filed 2/3/2025. It is noted that application is a continuation of 17/556,546 filed 12/20/2021 (US Patent No. 12,217,865) which is a continuation of 17/149,705 filed 01/14/2021 (US Patent No. 11,270,795) which is a CIP of 17/021,895 filed 09/15/2020 (US Patent No. 11,071,597) that claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/910,232 filed 10/03/2019. Claims 1-20 are 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3 are drawn to an apparatus for remote conferencing for healthcare treatment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 4-12 are drawn to a method for remote conferencing for healthcare treatment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 13-20 are drawn to a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for remote conferencing for healthcare treatment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
an electromechanical machine configured to be manipulated by an individual while the individual performs a treatment plan, the electromechanical machine comprising at least one pedal;
and a computing device configured to:
identify at least one healthcare provider associated with the individual;
determine, based on one or more schedules of the identified at least one healthcare provider, one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider;
generate, based on a first time slot of one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider, at least one schedule event;
communicate the at least one schedule event to the at least one healthcare provider; and
while the individual performs the treatment plan during one of the at least one schedule event, control a movement of the at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine during the first time slot.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The limitations of identifying a healthcare provider; determining time slots based on schedules; generating a schedule event; and communicating the schedule event as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims recite limitations directed to managing interactions between healthcare providers and an individual, including scheduling healthcare sessions, identifying healthcare providers, determining available time slots based on schedules, generating schedule events, and communicating schedule events. That is other than reciting “computing device” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed between people or by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
an electromechanical machine configured to be manipulated by an individual while the individual performs a treatment plan, the electromechanical machine comprising at least one pedal;
and a computing device configured to:
identify at least one healthcare provider associated with the individual;
determine, based on one or more schedules of the identified at least one healthcare provider, one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider;
generate, based on a first time slot of one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider, at least one schedule event;
communicate the at least one schedule event to the at least one healthcare provider; and
while the individual performs the treatment plan during one of the at least one schedule event, control a movement of the at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine during the first time slot.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitations performing the functions computing device amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph [0050] of the present Specification.
the recitation of while the individual performs the treatment plan during one of the at least one schedule event, control a movement of the at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine during the first time slot.
recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished).
in order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’".
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of an electromechanical machine configured to be manipulated by an individual while the individual performs a treatment plan, the electromechanical machine comprising at least one pedal merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a electromechanical machine.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
As per claims 4 and 13, the claim teaches limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claim 4 further teaches a method to perform the functionality of the system taught by claim 1. Claim 13 further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. These limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium as generally recited, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claims 4 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, claims 2, 5, and 14 recite generating a virtual conference room, displaying aspects of the virtual conference room, and authenticating a healthcare provider using identity information. These limitations merely further automate healthcare-provider interactions and therefore continue to recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, the authentication and conferencing limitations can be practically performed using generic computer functionality and do not recite any improvement to authentication technology, network communications, or conferencing systems. Accordingly, claims 2, 5, and 14 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 3, 6, and 15 recite obtaining a privacy policy and identifying healthcare providers using the privacy policy. These limitations merely recite using rules or policies to determine which providers should participate in a healthcare interaction. Such limitations constitute managing relationships or interactions between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, claims 3, 6, and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16-19 recite ranking available time slots based on preferences and/or time zones and selecting a highest-ranked time slot. These limitations recite evaluation, comparison, and selection of scheduling information, which can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper and therefore additionally recite mental processes. Further, ranking and selecting appointment times based on preferences or time zones constitutes organizing human activity involving coordination between individuals. Accordingly, claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16-19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 11, 12, and 20 recite displaying electronic medical records during the scheduled treatment session. Displaying information, including medical information, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity when performed in connection with an abstract idea. These limitations merely present information to users and do not recite any improvement to graphical user interfaces, data storage, medical record systems, or display technology. Accordingly, claims 11, 12, and 20 merely link the abstract idea to a generic technological environment and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the dependent claims, individually and as an ordered combination with the independent claims, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Burnfield et al. (US 8,007,405 B2) (hereinafter “Burnfield”) in view of Burdea et al. (WO 2008/140780 A1) (hereinafter “Burdea”) and Coley et al. (US 8,244,566 B1) (hereinafter “Coley).
As per claim 1, Burnfield teaches a computer-implemented system (Burnfield; col. 11, lines 20-31: “micro-control unit 119 configured to receive and process data ... and to transmit such data to a computing device 120 for decoding, display, storage and/or further processing”), comprising:
an electromechanical machine configured to be manipulated by an individual while the individual performs a treatment plan, the electromechanical machine comprising at least one pedal (Burnfield; col. 6, lines 25-39; Fig. 1; foot pedals 104 of rehabilitation and exercise machine 100);
and a computing device configured to:
while the individual performs the treatment plan during one of the at least one schedule event, control a movement of the at least one pedal of the electromechanical machine during the first time slot (Burnfield; col. 5, line 66 to Col. 6, line 5) microcontroller configured to transmit instructions to the motor to control operation of the machine and pedal movement).
Burnfield does not expressly teach:
identifying at least one healthcare provider associated with the individual;
determining, based on one or more schedules of the identified at least one healthcare provider, one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider;
generating, based on a first time slot of one or more available time slots for each respective healthcare provider, at least one schedule event; and
communicating the at least one schedule event to the at least one healthcare provider.
However, these features are old and well-known in the art as evidenced by Burdea and Coley. Burdea teaches scheduling and remote therapy coordination, including: “the system provides monitoring and scheduling of a therapy session by a clinician/doctor/therapist” (Burdea; page 2, lines 13-16). Burdea further teaches remote interaction between patients and healthcare providers during therapy sessions. Burdea therefore teaches healthcare-provider participation associated with a patient treatment session.
Coley teaches an automated computer network-based appointment scheduling service through which customers schedule appointments with service providers (Coley; Col. 12, lines 21-36). Coley teaches that a customer may choose a service provider and appointment date, after which an optimization algorithm is applied (Coley; Col.11, line 56 to Col. 12, line 8). Coley further teaches that the scheduling system may accommodate one or more service providers as inputs and may determine available appointment opportunities based on service-provider schedules (Coley; Col. 4, lines 51-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the rehabilitation system of Burnfield with the remote clinician participation and therapy-session management techniques of Burdea and the appointment scheduling techniques of Coley because doing so would permit healthcare providers to participate in scheduled remote rehabilitation sessions, improve coordination between patients and healthcare providers, reduce administrative burden associated with appointment management, and facilitate remote supervision of rehabilitation treatment.
As per claim 2, Burnfield does not expressly teach the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
generate, at the first time slot, a virtual conference room;
display at least one aspect of the virtual conference room; and
authenticate, in response to a request from a user of the virtual conference room to enter the virtual conference room, the user as the at least one healthcare provider using identity information associated with the at least one healthcare provider.
However, these features are old and well-known in the art as evidenced by Burdea. Burdea teaches remote therapy interaction through network communication interfaces and remote conferencing environments permitting interaction between clinicians and patients during therapy sessions (Burdea; page 4, lines 1-15).
Burdea does not expressly teach authenticating a user into a virtual conference room using identity information associated with the healthcare provider. However, user authentication for access to remote conferencing systems was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to incorporate conventional authentication techniques into the remote conferencing system of Burdea to ensure secure participation by authorized healthcare providers in remote rehabilitation sessions.
Claim 4 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in method form and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
As per claims 7-8 and 10, Burnfield does not expressly teach:
The method of claim 4, further comprising ranking the one or more available time slots.
The method of claim 7, wherein ranking the one or more available time slots includes ranking the one or more available time slots based on at least one preference of the individual.
The method of claim 4, wherein the first time slot corresponds to a time slot of the available time slots having a highest rank.
As discussed above, Burnfield in view of Coley and Burdea teaches identifying healthcare providers, determining available time slots, generating schedule events, and communicating schedule events for remote rehabilitation treatment sessions.
Burnfield and Burdea do not expressly teach ranking available time slots based upon participant preferences and selecting a highest-ranked available time slot.
Coley teaches an automated appointment scheduling service in which available appointment opportunities are evaluated according to scheduling rules and user preferences (Coley; Col. 12, lines 21-36). Coley teaches prioritizing appointment opportunities occurring during preferred time periods over appointment opportunities occurring during non-preferred time periods and selecting preferred appointment opportunities from among available appointment opportunities (Coley; Col 30, lines 24-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the scheduling system of Burnfield with the preference-based appointment prioritization techniques of Coley because doing so would improve scheduling efficiency, reduce scheduling conflicts, facilitate coordination among healthcare providers, and improve user convenience during remote rehabilitation sessions. Further, applying preference-based ranking criteria to available appointment opportunities merely represents the predictable use of known scheduling optimization techniques according to their established functions.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in method form and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Claims 16-19 recite limitations corresponding substantially to claims 7-10 and are met for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 3, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Burnfield et al. (US 8,007,405 B2) (hereinafter “Burnfield”) in view of Burdea et al. (WO 2008/140780 A1) (hereinafter “Burdea”) and Coley et al. (US 8,244,566 B1) (hereinafter “Coley) in further view of Official Notice.
As per claim 3, Burnfield does not expressly teach the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
obtain a privacy policy corresponding to at least one of the treatment plan and the individual; and
identify, using the privacy policy, the at least one healthcare provider.
Regarding claim 3, Examiner takes Official Notice that determining healthcare-provider participation using privacy policies or authorization rules constitutes a conventional access-control technique commonly employed in healthcare information systems to ensure regulatory compliance and restrict access to authorized providers.
It would have been obvious to incorporate such authorization and privacy-policy techniques into the combined system to improve patient privacy protection and comply with healthcare privacy requirements.
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Burnfield et al. (US 8,007,405 B2) (hereinafter “Burnfield”) in view of Coley et al. (US 8,244,566 B1) (hereinafter “Coley”) and Burdea et al. (WO 2008/140780 A1) (hereinafter “Burdea”) further in view of Hickle et al. (US 2021/0275025) (hereinafter “Hickle”).
As per claims 11-12, Burnfield in view of Coley and Burdea do not expressly teach:
displaying, at a user interface during the first time slot, at least one electronic medical record associated with the individual.
displaying at least one electronic medical record associated with the individual at a user interface during the first time slot.
However, displaying at least one electronic medical record was old and well-known in the healthcare rehabilitation arts at the time of the claimed invention as evidenced by Hickle. Hickle para. [0016] teaches providing a visual interface with a summary of the updated EMR. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the display of EMR data as taught by Hickle to the BUrnfield in view of Coley and Burdea teachings as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20 repeats substantially similar limitations as claim 11 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
Claims 9 and 18 teach subject matter free from prior art. The closest prior arts of record teach using time zones as a scheduling constraint but do not expressly teach “ranking the one or more available time slots based on at least one time zone corresponding to the at least one healthcare provider.” No final decision on patentability has been made in light of pending rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest non-patent literature of record Anton et. al (Antón et al., “A Telerehabilitation System for the Selection, Evaluation and Remote Management of Therapies,” Sensors, Vol. 18, No. 5, Article 1459 (2018)) teaches a telerehabilitation system (KiReS) configured to enable remote physical therapy sessions between patients and therapists. The system provides therapist participation in rehabilitation sessions, remote management of therapy protocols, remote evaluation of patient performance, and real-time multimedia communication between therapists and patients. Antón et al. therefore teaches remote therapist participation in rehabilitation treatment sessions, remote management of therapies, remote evaluation of patient progress, and real-time communication between healthcare providers and patients during rehabilitation activities. However, Antón et al. do not appear to expressly teach determining healthcare-provider availability from provider schedules, generating schedule events based on available provider time slots, communicating schedule events to healthcare providers, or controlling movement of a pedal of an electromechanical rehabilitation machine during a scheduled treatment session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 5/30/26
Prosecution Insights