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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2025 was filed. 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 § 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 9-16 and 22-26 are related to systems, and claims 1-8 and 17-21 are also related to methods. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 9 recites:
A telemedicine computing system, comprising:
a telemedicine server system, the server system communicatively coupled to:
a patient computing system;
a provider admitting computing system; and
a first provider practitioner computing system associated with a first provider practitioner;
the telemedicine server system adapted to:
maintain a provider waiting pool and expose each patient in the provider waiting pool to at least one of the at least one provider admitting computing system; and
maintain at least one provider practitioner pool and expose each patient in the provider practitioner pool to at least one of the at least one provider practitioner computing system;
the telemedicine server system further adapted to:
receive, from one of the at least one patient computing system, a join request for a patient consultation, wherein the join request identifies a patient associated with the patient computing system;
responsive to the join request, assign the patient to the provider waiting pool;
receive, from one of the at least one provider admitting computing system, an admission selection of the patient assigned to the provider waiting pool;
responsive to the admission selection, initiate an audiovisual admissions teleconference between the one of the at least one patient computing system and the one of the at least one provider admitting computing system;
receive, from the provider admitting computing system, a first practitioner selection assignment assigning the patient to the first provider practitioner;
responsive to the first practitioner selection assignment, assign the patient to a first provider practitioner pool associated with the first provider practitioner computing system, wherein the first provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the first provider practitioner pool to the first provider practitioner computing system;
terminate the audiovisual admissions teleconference;
receive, from the first provider practitioner computing system, a first consultation selection of the patient in the first provider practitioner pool; and
responsive to the first consultation selection, initiate a first audiovisual consultation teleconference between the patient computing system and the first provider practitioner computing system.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior/interactions as the following abstract limitations are related to the administration of patient consultations:
Maintain a provider waiting pool, which is an abstract limitation related to observing the waiting pool of users,
Maintain at least one provider practitioner pool, which is an abstract limitation related to analysis of the provider practitioner pool,
Receive a join request for a patient consultation, wherein the join request identifies a patient, which is an abstract limitation related to an observation and analysis of the request,
Responsive to the join request, assign the patient to the provider waiting pool, which is an abstract limitation related to a judgment from the request to assign the patient to the provider waiting pool,
Receive an admission selection of the patient assigned to the provider waiting pool, which is an abstract limitation of an observation of the admission selection,
Responsive to the admission selection, initiate an audiovisual admission conference, which is an abstract limitation related to establishing communications between people,
Receive a first practitioner selection assignment assigning the patient to the first provider practitioner, which is an abstract limitation related to a judgement of assigning the patient to a provider,
Responsive to the first practitioner selection assignment, assign the patient to a first provider practitioner pool, wherein the first provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the first provider practitioner pool, which is an abstract limitation related to an observation and judgement of assigning patients to the provider pool,
Terminate the audiovisual admissions conference, which is an abstract limitation related to a judgement of stopping the communication,
Receive a first consultation selection of the patient in the first provider practitioner pool, which is an abstract limitation related to determination of a first consultation selection in the first pool,
Responsive to the first consultation selection, initiate a first audiovisual consultation conference, which is an abstract limitation related to the determination of starting the communication between people based on the selection.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for the administration of patient consultations, and therefore recite managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), where examples such as “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” recite managing personal behavior. The example is relatively analogous to the instant application in that the abstract limitations and steps are followed when performing an action related to the care of a patient such as the administration of patient consultations
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is similar to that of claim 9.
Additionally, claim 22 recites:
A telemedicine computing system adapted for providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a virtual consultation in a telemedicine platform, the telemedicine computing system comprising:
a telemedicine server system communicatively coupled to a patient computing system;
the telemedicine server system adapted to:
receive medical data from a patient computing system associated with the patient;
use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item, wherein the at least one targeted media item is selected for relevance to the patient based on the medical data;
present to the patient, in a user interface of the patient computing system, an opportunity to make a selection of one of:
the at least one targeted media item; and
at least one distractor media item of lesser relevance to the patient, relative to the at least one targeted media item;
receive the selection from the patient computing system; and
responsive to the selection, present, in the user interface of the patient computing system, the selected one of:
the at least one targeted media item; and
the at least one distractor media item.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior/interactions as the following abstract limitations are related to providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a consultation:
Use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item, wherein the at least one targeted media item is selected for relevance to the patient based on the medical data, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis of the medical data to make a judgement on the selection of targeted media items,
Present to the patient an opportunity to make a selection of one of the at least one targeted media item and at least one distractor media item of lesser relevance to the patient, relative to the at least one targeted media item, which is an abstract limitation related to a patient to make a judgment and selection of either of the media items,
Receive the selection, which is an abstract limitation related to the observation of the selection,
Responsive to the selection, present, the selected one of the at least one targeted media item and the at least one distractor media item, which is an abstract limitation related to the interaction between people of presenting the selected target media items.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a consultation, and therefore recite managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), where examples such as “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” recite managing personal behavior. The example is relatively analogous to the instant application in that the abstract limitations and steps are followed when performing an action related to the care of a patient such as providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a consultation.
The abstract idea recited in claim 17 is similar to that of claim 22.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2, 3 and 10, 11 recite further abstract limitations of the “assigning” the patients to the pools by assigning a patient object representing the patient to a queue as described, which further describes the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 12 recite further abstract limitations of assigning the patient to a waiting queue as described using an admitting tag, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 13 recite further abstract limitations related to the independent claims of “receiving”, “assigning”, “terminating”, and initiating the second audiovisual consultation as described, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 16 recite further abstract limitations of assigning the patient to an admissions pool in association with the consultation, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 18 and 23 recite further abstract limitations of “using the medical data to “select” the distractor media, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 19 and 24 recite further abstract limitations of the selection of the distractor media to be random, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 20 and 25 recite further abstract limitations of using a decision tree to select the targeted media, thus further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
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”):
Regarding claim 9:
A telemedicine computing system, comprising:
a telemedicine server system, the server system communicatively coupled to:
a patient computing system;
a provider admitting computing system; and
a first provider practitioner computing system associated with a first provider practitioner (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
the telemedicine server system adapted to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
maintain a provider waiting pool and expose each patient in the provider waiting pool to at least one of the at least one provider admitting computing system; and (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
maintain at least one provider practitioner pool and expose each patient in the provider practitioner pool to at least one of the at least one provider practitioner computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
the telemedicine server system further adapted to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receive, from one of the at least one patient computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a join request for a patient consultation, wherein the join request identifies a patient associated with the patient computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
responsive to the join request, assign the patient to the provider waiting pool;
receive, from one of the at least one provider admitting computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), an admission selection of the patient assigned to the provider waiting pool;
responsive to the admission selection, initiate an audiovisual admissions teleconference between the one of the at least one patient computing system and the one of the at least one provider admitting computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive, from the provider admitting computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a first practitioner selection assignment assigning the patient to the first provider practitioner;
responsive to the first practitioner selection assignment, assign the patient to a first provider practitioner pool associated with the first provider practitioner computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein the first provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the first provider practitioner pool to the first provider practitioner computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
terminate the audiovisual admissions teleconference (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive, from the first provider practitioner computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a first consultation selection of the patient in the first provider practitioner pool; and
responsive to the first consultation selection, initiate a first audiovisual consultation teleconference between the patient computing system and the first provider practitioner computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
Regarding the additional limitation of the telemedicine computing system with the server system coupled to a patient computing system, and provider admitting computer system, a first provider practitioner system, the provider practitioner system associated with a first practitioner, the telemedicine server system performing tasks, patients in the provider waiting pool being exposed to the provider admitting system, patients in the provider practitioner pool exposed to the provider practitioner computing system, the telemedicine server system performing tasks, the patient computing system performing tasks, the provider admitting computing system performing tasks, the teleconference between the patient and provider admitting systems, the provider admitting system performing tasks, the first provider practitioner system performing tasks, and a teleconference between the patient and provider practitioner systems, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0098] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall telemedicine computing system with components such as the server and computing systems attached. [0029] describes the associations of the practitioners to the system. [0026] describes the telemedicine server system. [0067] describes the interactions of the patients with the admitting system and provider practitioner system. [0024] describes further the patient computing system. [0021] describes the provider admitting system. [0076, 00101] describes the use of teleconferencing techniques with the patients and admitting systems and the provider practitioner systems. Overall, the use of different computing system technologies as described are nothing more than the use generic computing components to carry out the abstract idea. There is no recitation of the use of specific, improved technologies related to teleconferencing and computing, and therefore recites the mere computer implementation.
Claim 1 recites similar additional elements as in claim 9 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Additionally, claim 22 recites:
A telemedicine computing system adapted for providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a virtual consultation in a telemedicine platform, the telemedicine computing system comprising (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
a telemedicine server system communicatively coupled to a patient computing system;
the telemedicine server system adapted to (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receive medical data from a patient computing system associated with the patient (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.);
use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item, wherein the at least one targeted media item is selected for relevance to the patient based on the medical data;
present to the patient, in a user interface of the patient computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), an opportunity to make a selection of one of:
the at least one targeted media item; and
at least one distractor media item of lesser relevance to the patient, relative to the at least one targeted media item;
receive the selection from the patient computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
responsive to the selection, present, in the user interface of the patient computing system (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the selected one of:
the at least one targeted media item; and
the at least one distractor media item.
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.
Regarding the additional limitation of the telemedicine computing system comprising the server system and the patient computing system, the use of virtual consultations, the patient computing system performing tasks, and the use of a user interface of the patient computing system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0098] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall telemedicine system with the server and patient computing systems. [0026] describes the use of the server. [0024] describes the use of the patient computing system. [0026] recites the use of the user interface for presenting. [0021] recites the virtual nature of the consultation. Overall, the use of different computing system technologies as described are nothing more than the use generic computing components to carry out the abstract idea. There is no recitation of the use of specific, improved technologies related to virtual conferencing, use of a UI, and computing, and therefore recites the mere computer implementation.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive medical data from a patient computing system associated with the patient, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0080] in Applicant’s Specification recites the action of receiving medical data, however this is used as mere data gathering steps for the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites similar additional elements as claim 22 and are analyzed in a similar manner.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to manage interactions between patient and provider, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 5 and 13 recite additional elements of another computing device of the second provider practitioner computing system and the use of a second teleconference, where there is no indication of a technology improvement on the devices to carry out the abstract idea and is thus mere computer implementation. Claims 6, 7 and 14, 15 recite additional elements of exposing the patients to the first provider practitioner computing system, which indicates the use of a computing environment to carry out the abstract idea and is thus mere computer implementation. Claims 21 and 26 recite additional elements of using a trained machine learning engine on medical data to select the media item, which is recited at a general level and does not show an improvement to technologies, and is thus mere computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 9:
Regarding the additional limitation of the telemedicine computing system with the server system coupled to a patient computing system, and provider admitting computer system, a first provider practitioner system, the provider practitioner system associated with a first practitioner, the telemedicine server system performing tasks, patients in the provider waiting pool being exposed to the provider admitting system, patients in the provider practitioner pool exposed to the provider practitioner computing system, the telemedicine server system performing tasks, the patient computing system performing tasks, the provider admitting computing system performing tasks, the teleconference between the patient and provider admitting systems, the provider admitting system performing tasks, the first provider practitioner system performing tasks, and a teleconference between the patient and provider practitioner systems, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0098] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall telemedicine computing system with components such as the server and computing systems attached. [0029] describes the associations of the practitioners to the system. [0026] describes the telemedicine server system. [0067] describes the interactions of the patients with the admitting system and provider practitioner system. [0024] describes further the patient computing system. [0021] describes the provider admitting system. [0076, 00101] describes the use of teleconferencing techniques with the patients and admitting systems and the provider practitioner systems. Overall, the use of different computing system technologies as described are nothing more than the use generic computing components to carry out the abstract idea. There is no recitation of the use of specific, improved technologies related to teleconferencing and computing, and therefore recites the mere computer implementation and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of teleconference devices to send communications between providers and patients recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim 1 recites similar additional elements as in claim 9 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 22:
Regarding the additional limitation of the telemedicine computing system comprising the server system and the patient computing system, the use of virtual consultations, the patient computing system performing tasks, and the use of a user interface of the patient computing system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0098] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall telemedicine system with the server and patient computing systems. [0026] describes the use of the server. [0024] describes the use of the patient computing system. [0026] recites the use of the user interface for presenting. [0021] recites the virtual nature of the consultation. Overall, the use of different computing system technologies as described are nothing more than the use generic computing components to carry out the abstract idea. There is no recitation of the use of specific, improved technologies related to virtual conferencing, use of a UI, and computing, and therefore recites the mere computer implementation and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Use of connected devices to send information to other computing systems via a communication network recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive medical data from a patient computing system associated with the patient, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0080] in Applicant’s Specification recites the action of receiving medical data, however this is used as mere data gathering steps for the abstract idea. The action of sending information to another computing device via a network to receive the medical data recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim 17 recites similar additional elements as claim 22 and are analyzed in a similar manner.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0114600 A1 to Valles Leon (“Valles Leon”):
Regarding claim 9:
Valles Leon teaches a telemedicine computing system, comprising: a telemedicine server system, the server system communicatively coupled to: ([0003]- overall telehealth system described. [0015, 0017]- system uses an interaction of devices via a network (interpreted as a telemedicine server system).)
a patient computing system; ([0013]- patient access telehealth system via electronic communication device (interpreted as the patient computing system).)
a provider admitting computing system; and ([0017]- the telehealth control system in Figure 1 manages the virtual encounter between providers and patients (interpreted as the provider admitting computing system).)
a first provider practitioner computing system associated with a first provider practitioner; ([0013]- provider uses device for videoconferencing in the system (the use of these remote devices for the provider is interpreted as a first provider practitioner computing system associated with the first provider).)
the telemedicine server system adapted to: maintain a provider waiting pool and expose each patient in the provider waiting pool to at least one of the at least one provider admitting computing system; and ([0014]- virtual waiting room for the patient when waiting for a provider, where the patient waits in the virtual waiting room (interpreted as exposing each patient in the provider waiting room).)
maintain at least one provider practitioner pool and expose each patient in the provider practitioner pool to at least one of the at least one provider practitioner computing system; ([0022]- system has a pool of providers where patients have the opportunity to be in a queue waiting to interact with the providers (pool of providers interpreted as the provider practitioner pool where patients are exposed to the provider practitioner computing system).)
the telemedicine server system further adapted to: receive, from one of the at least one patient computing system, a join request for a patient consultation, wherein the join request identifies a patient associated with the patient computing system; ([0018]-patient computing device sends notification for a request to join a virtual encounter.)
responsive to the join request, assign the patient to the provider waiting pool; ([0022]- after request, patient is assigned to the virtual waiting room and assigns the patient to a set of providers)
receive, from one of the at least one provider admitting computing system, an admission selection of the patient assigned to the provider waiting pool; ([0024]- patient is accepted and goes into the space with a collection of providers.)
responsive to the admission selection, initiate an audiovisual admissions teleconference between the one of the at least one patient computing system and the one of the at least one provider admitting computing system; ([0025]- telehealth encounter is initiated between the patient device (the patient computing system) and the control system as described further in [0017] (the provider admitting computing system).)
receive, from the provider admitting computing system, a first practitioner selection assignment assigning the patient to the first provider practitioner; ([0025]- patient placed into a waiting list and can be selected based on demand for example (interpreted as the selection assignment))
responsive to the first practitioner selection assignment, assign the patient to a first provider practitioner pool associated with the first provider practitioner computing system, wherein the first provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the first provider practitioner pool to the first provider practitioner computing system; ([0024]- after the first provider is assigned with the patient, assign patient to another environment depending on the need (the first provider practitioner pool) where the first practitioner and patient interact with each other.)
terminate the audiovisual admissions teleconference; ([0022]- patients are placed in a queue if there are no sufficient providers, indicating that a teleconference is terminated.)
receive, from the first provider practitioner computing system, a first consultation selection of the patient in the first provider practitioner pool; and ([0025]- provider selects the patient waiting for the pool of practitioners (interpreted as receiving a consultation selection from the provider computing system).)
responsive to the first consultation selection, initiate a first audiovisual consultation teleconference between the patient computing system and the first provider practitioner computing system. ([0025]- telehealth encounter is initiated between the patient device (the patient computing system) and the provider’s device as described further in [0017] (the provider admitting computing system).)
Claim 1 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to: assign the patient to a waiting pool by assigning a patient object representing the patient to a waiting queue; and assign the patient to the first provider practitioner pool by assigning the patient object representing the patient to a first provider practitioner queue ([0022]- figure 2 shows the visualization of patients waiting in a queue where they are in the virtual waiting room, where the patient is moved to a different provider pool depending on need)
wherein the waiting queue and the first provider practitioner queue are distinct from one another. ([0021, 0022]- pool of patients and pool of providers)
Claim 2 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to: assign the patient to a waiting pool by assigning a patient object representing the patient to a waiting queue; and ([0022]- figure 2 shows the visualization of patients waiting in a queue where they are in the virtual waiting room, where the patient is moved to a different provider pool depending on need)
assign the patient to a first provider practitioner pool by assigning the patient object representing the patient to a common practitioner provider queue and assigning a first provider practitioner tag to the patient object, wherein the first provider practitioner tag associates the patient object with the first provider practitioner computer system; wherein the waiting queue and the common provider practitioner queue are distinct from one another. ([0025]- need for provider to be assigned to the patient is interpreted as the tag)
Claim 3 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 11.
Regarding claim 12:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to: assign the patient to a waiting pool by assigning a patient object representing the patient to a single common queue and assigning an admitting tag to the patient object; and ([0022]- figure 2 shows the visualization of patients waiting in a queue where they are in the virtual waiting room, where the patient is moved to a different provider pool depending on need)
assign the patient to the first provider practitioner pool by maintaining the patient object in the single common queue and assigning a first provider practitioner tag to the patient object, wherein the first provider practitioner tag associates the patient object with the first provider practitioner computer system. (([0025]- patient is assigned to a different pool of providers)
Claim 4 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 12.
Regarding claim 13:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is further adapted to: receive, from the first provider practitioner computing system, a second practitioner selection assignment assigning the patient to a second provider practitioner; ([0025]- patient placed into a waiting list and can be selected based on demand for example (interpreted as the selection assignment))
responsive to the second practitioner selection assignment, assign the patient to a second provider practitioner pool associated with a second provider practitioner computing system, wherein the second provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the second provider practitioner pool to the second provider practitioner computing system; ([0024]- after the second provider is assigned with the patient, assign patient to another environment depending on the need (the first provider practitioner pool) where the first practitioner and patient interact with each other.)
terminate the first audiovisual consultation teleconference; ([0022]- patients are placed in a queue if there are no sufficient providers, indicating that a teleconference is terminated.)
receive, from the second provider practitioner computing system, a second consultation selection of the patient in the second provider practitioner pool; and ([0025]- provider selects the patient waiting for the pool of practitioners (interpreted as receiving a consultation selection from the provider computing system).)
responsive to the second consultation selection, initiate a second audiovisual consultation teleconference between the patient computing system and the second provider practitioner computing system. ([0025]- telehealth encounter is initiated between the patient device (the patient computing system) and the provider’s device as described further in [0017] (the provider admitting computing system).)
Claim 5 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 13.
Regarding claim 14:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Valles Leon further teaches the first provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the first provider practitioner pool to the second provider practitioner computing system; and the second provider practitioner pool exposes each patient in the second provider practitioner pool to the first provider practitioner computing system. ([0025]- pools of providers exposes patients to multiple providers)
Claim 6 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 14.
Regarding claim 15:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the waiting pool further exposes each patient in the waiting pool to the first provider practitioner computing system. ([0025]- pools of providers exposes patients to multiple providers)
Claim 7 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 15.
Regarding claim 16:
Valles Leon teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Valles Leon further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is further adapted to, responsive to the admission selection, assign the patient to an admissions pool in association with initiating the audiovisual admissions teleconference between the patient computing system and the provider admitting computing system. ([0025]- telehealth encounter is initiated between the patient device (the patient computing system) and the provider’s device as described further in [0017] (the provider admitting computing system).)
Claim 8 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 16.
Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0384003 A1 to Gnanasambandam et al. (“Gnanasambandam”):
Regarding claim 22:
Gnanasambandam teaches a telemedicine computing system adapted for providing patient-centered medical information while a patient waits to enter a virtual consultation in a telemedicine platform, the telemedicine computing system comprising: ([0004]- curated content given to patient to educate patient about condition (interpreted as providing patient centered medical information). [0309]-telemedicine platform used)
a telemedicine server system communicatively coupled to a patient computing system; ([0141]- user device connected to the cognitive intelligence platform as shown in Figure 1 (interpreted as the telemedicine server system) via the network)
the telemedicine server system adapted to: receive medical data from a patient computing system associated with the patient; ([0234]- multiple data sources are used to gather patient medical data including subject matter ontology data for example. [0373]- medical data gathered from EMR)
use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item, wherein the at least one targeted media item is selected for relevance to the patient based on the medical data; ([0122]- depending on relevancy, curated material will be shown (interpreted as the targeted media item).)
present to the patient, in a user interface of the patient computing system, an opportunity to make a selection of one of: the at least one targeted media item; and at least one distractor media item of lesser relevance to the patient, relative to the at least one targeted media item; receive the selection from the patient computing system; and responsive to the selection, present, in the user interface of the patient computing system, the selected one of: the at least one targeted media item; and the at least one distractor media item. ([0486-0488]- Figure 48A shows the user can select the curated content that was generated by the cognitive intelligence platform (interpreted as using the interface to present to the patient to select the target media item)
Claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 22.
Regarding claim 23:
Gnanasambandam teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Gnanasambandam further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to use the medical data to select the at least one distractor media item to be of lesser relevance to the patient, relative to the at least one targeted media item. ([0122]- depending on relevancy, curated material will be shown)
Claim 18 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 23.
Regarding claim 24:
Gnanasambandam teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Gnanasambandam further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to select the at least one distractor media item randomly. ([0511]- random visits, implies random selection of curated material to be presented.)
Claim 19 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 24.
Regarding claim 25:
Gnanasambandam teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Gnanasambandam further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item by applying a decision tree to the medical data. ([0172]- use of decision tree)
Claim 20 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 25.
Regarding claim 26:
Gnanasambandam teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Gnanasambandam further teaches wherein the telemedicine computing system is adapted to use the medical data to select at least one targeted media item by applying a trained machine learning engine to the medical data. ([0151]- use of trained machine learning model to generated the curated content)
Claim 21 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 26.
The following references have been considered as relevant however have not been used in the above rejections:
WO 2018/081297 A1 to Gomes et al. teaches of establishing a connection between patient and provider devices in a telehealth environment.
NPL “Coupling a fast fourier transformation with a machine learning ensemble model to support recommendations for heart disease patients in a telehealth environment” to Zhang et al. teaches of using machine learning to increase the accuracy of treatment recommendations to a patient in a telehealth environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686