DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on April 4, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims recite “a medical information retrieval services”. This should read “a medical information retrieval service” for grammatical purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method, a manufacture and a system respectively and therefore all fall into one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1: Yes, the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis - Prong one:
The substantially similar independent method, system, and computer readable media claims, taking claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following limitations: A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising: obtaining encounter information during an encounter with an encounter participant via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant; accessing participant information stored in a resource, the participant information associated with the encounter participant; processing the encounter information in real-time; updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter; processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task; and determining a query to be presented to the user regarding the task based on the free-form input, the task, and the updated participant information.
The examiner interprets the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations above, 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. That is, other than reciting a method implemented by a computing device, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the additional elements identified/bolded above, this claim encompasses a physician meeting with a patient to gather information, retrieving the patients data during the meeting, updating the patient data based on the gathered information and identifying a task and a subsequent query for the patient 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” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the remaining un-bolded limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the computing device, the audio system and machine vision system, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the identified additional elements, this claim encompasses a person interacting with a participant to gather updated participant data, reading patient history, identifying a task from listening to speech, and determining a query in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract).
Step 2A analysis - Prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a computing device (claim 1), a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon (claim 8), a memory (claim 15) and a processor (claims 8 and 15) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processor reads computer programs, analyzes data, receives inputs, executes control functions, etc. (see Applicant’s specification paras 127-129). The identified additional elements equate to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application.
Further, the additional elements of (1) obtaining encounter information via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant is being interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. Step (1) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity, and does not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed invention. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computing device, a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon, a memory, and a processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Applicants specification discloses the following:
Applicant describes embodiments of the disclosure at a very high level to include the use of a wide variety of memories, processors, devices, etc. (see paras 28-31, 127-129, 138-141, 164-167). For example, paragraph 164 of Applicant’s specification states that the invention can use any type of code employed on any computer capable of implementing the process/method.
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of (1) ‘obtaining encounter information via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant’ was considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). See also Applicant’s specification paras 26 and 30-31 regarding the use of wireless communication to transmit data obtained from e.g. microphones.
In summary, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because 1) mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) and 2) well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). The claims do not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2B: No, the claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the independent claims and are further grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. Further, claims 7, 14 and 20 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claims 7, 14 and 20 recite an electronic health record system and an order fulfillment system. This/these additional element(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 20140074454).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising: obtaining encounter information during an encounter with an encounter participant via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant; (Brown discloses a conversational virtual assistant comprising one or more computing devices (executed on a computing device) that aids patients in fulfilling their healthcare needs. As part of this assistance, a conversation graphical user interface (GUI) is employed by the virtual healthcare assistant that enables users to better understand their interactions with the assistant, particularly when speech input and output is involved. The conversation GUI may capture data inputs (obtaining encounter information) such as audio or speech input (an audio system) from the patient (an encounter participant), as well as gesture or emotive input if equipped with a camera or other sensor (a machine vision system). Both the patient (an encounter participant) and/or the medical professional (an encounter participant) may interact with the electronic device. – paras 10, 17, 50, 52, 95; FIG. 2A)
accessing participant information stored in a resource, the participant information associated with the encounter participant; (Brown discloses that the virtual assistant may identify context associated with the patient or with a session of the patient on the platform of the healthcare entities. Where the context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, or the like (accessing participant information stored in a resource). – paras 95, 113)
processing the encounter information in real-time; (Brown discloses a communication flow between the patient via their electronic device and the virtual assistant service. FIG. 6 for example shows the patient has input that they “don’t feel well” and the virtual assistant responds with a query “what is the matter” (processing the encounter information in real-time).– paras 21, 58, 78; FIGs. 2A-2B, 6)
updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter; (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant helps manage personal healthcare records. The conversation GUI may provide the interface for entering information into the personal healthcare records (updating the participant information) and may assist the patient in providing complete information as well as suggesting an appropriate category or location within the personal healthcare records. The diagnostic application 902 may access the medical records of the patient (e.g., the context) when determining a diagnosis for the patient (updating the participant information with the encounter information). The diagnosis is presented by the diagnostic application 902 in the conversation GUI and may be based on real-time communication between the electronic device 104 and a medical professional (in real-time during the encounter). – paras 11, 56, 95)
processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task; (Brown discloses that the conversation GUI may capture audio or speech input from the patient (processing a free-form input from a user). The virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task, for example, the patient may instruct the virtual assistant and say “I want to check in.” (processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task). – abstract; paras 13, 37, 50, 81-82; FIG. 7B)
and determining a query to be presented to the user regarding the task based on the free-form input, the task, and the updated participant information. (Brown discloses that the virtual-assistant service may determine a suitable response to provide to the patient (determining a query to be presented to the user) based on what the patient input is (based on the free-form input). This response may be determined by identifying an intent of the patients query (the task) with reference to the concepts and one or more pieces of the context (the updated participant information), and then by mapping the determined intent along with one or more same or different pieces of the context 708 to produce the response 710. – paras 81-82; FIG. 7B)
Regarding Claim 2, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises updating the participant information before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task. (Brown discloses that the system may convey information collected from the patient (the encounter information) to a medical professional who is available to review (updating the participant information) and respond (before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task). This may also be done automatically by the diagnostic application without the need for a medical professional. For example, the dialog representation 120(1) provides a response (the query to be presented to the user regarding the task) to the patient's previous query. The response may be based on medical records or prescription information associated with the patient 102 (updating the participant information before the query). – paras 69, 95)
Regarding Claim 3, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein updating the participant information with the processed encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises labeling the processed encounter information as unverified encounter information. (Brown discloses FIG. 3 which shows the conversation GUI at an instance when the patient provides an ambiguous input (the processed encounter information in real-time during the encounter) and the virtual assistant seeks to clarify what the patient meant in the preceding input (labeling the processed encounter information as unverified encounter information). – paras 18, 34, 73; FIG. 3)
Regarding Claim 5, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: receiving an approval for the unverified encounter information from a qualified user; (Brown discloses that the patient (a qualified user) may select a clarification element (receiving an approval for the unverified encounter information). – paras 73-74; FIG. 3)
and labeling the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval. (Brown discloses that the patient may select a clarification element, and upon selection, the system receives the user input (labeling the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval). For example, figure 4 shows that after the patient selects a clarification element, the interface presents content in response to the patient’s selection. – paras 73-75; FIGs. 3-4)
Regarding Claim 6, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: inferring information needed to perform the task from the updated participant information. (Brown discloses interpreting the patients input (inferring information needed to perform the task) with regards to the context (the updated participant information). – paras 82, 113)
Regarding Claim 8, Brown discloses the following limitations:
A computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (Brown discloses a conversation user interface that enables patients to better understand their healthcare by integrating diagnosis, treatment, medication management, and payment, through a system (including one or more processors (a processor)) that uses a virtual assistant to engage in conversation with the patient. The various memories 132, 140, and 156 store modules and data, and may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory, removable and/or non-removable media, and the like, which may be implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data (A computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon). – abstract; paras 52-55)
obtaining encounter information during an encounter with an encounter participant via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant; (Brown discloses a conversational virtual assistant comprising one or more computing devices that aids patients in fulfilling their healthcare needs. As part of this assistance, a conversation graphical user interface (GUI) is employed by the virtual healthcare assistant that enables users to better understand their interactions with the assistant, particularly when speech input and output is involved. The conversation GUI may capture data inputs (obtaining encounter information) such as audio or speech input (an audio system) from the patient (an encounter participant), as well as gesture or emotive input if equipped with a camera or other sensor (a machine vision system). Both the patient (an encounter participant) and/or the medical professional (an encounter participant) may interact with the electronic device. – paras 10, 17, 50, 52, 95; FIG. 2A)
accessing participant information stored in a resource, the participant information associated with the encounter participant; (Brown discloses that the virtual assistant may identify context associated with the patient or with a session of the patient on the platform of the healthcare entities. Where the context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, or the like (accessing participant information stored in a resource). – paras 95, 113)
processing the encounter information in real-time; (Brown discloses a communication flow between the patient via their electronic device and the virtual assistant service. FIG. 6 for example shows the patient has input that they “don’t feel well” and the virtual assistant responds with a query “what is the matter” (processing the encounter information in real-time).– paras 21, 58, 78; FIGs. 2A-2B, 6)
updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter; (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant helps manage personal healthcare records. The conversation GUI may provide the interface for entering information into the personal healthcare records (updating the participant information) and may assist the patient in providing complete information as well as suggesting an appropriate category or location within the personal healthcare records. The diagnostic application 902 may access the medical records of the patient (e.g., the context) when determining a diagnosis for the patient (updating the participant information with the encounter information). The diagnosis is presented by the diagnostic application 902 in the conversation GUI and may be based on real-time communication between the electronic device 104 and a medical professional (in real-time during the encounter). – paras 11, 56, 95)
processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task; (Brown discloses that the conversation GUI may capture audio or speech input from the patient (processing a free-form input from a user). The virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task, for example, the patient may instruct the virtual assistant and say “I want to check in.” (processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task). – abstract; paras 13, 37, 50, 81-82; FIG. 7B)
and determining a query to be presented to the user regarding the task based on the free-form input, the task, and the updated participant information. (Brown discloses that the virtual-assistant service may determine a suitable response to provide to the patient (determining a query to be presented to the user) based on what the patient input is (based on the free-form input). This response may be determined by identifying an intent of the patients query (the task) with reference to the concepts and one or more pieces of the context (the updated participant information), and then by mapping the determined intent along with one or more same or different pieces of the context 708 to produce the response 710. – paras 81-82; FIG. 7B)
Regarding Claim 9, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 8, wherein updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises updating the participant information before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task. (Brown discloses that the system may convey information collected from the patient (the encounter information) to a medical professional who is available to review (updating the participant information) and respond (before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task). This may also be done automatically by the diagnostic application without the need for a medical professional. For example, the dialog representation 120(1) provides a response (the query to be presented to the user regarding the task) to the patient's previous query. The response may be based on medical records or prescription information associated with the patient 102 (updating the participant information before the query). – paras 69, 95)
Regarding Claim 10, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 8, wherein updating the participant information with the processed encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises labeling the processed encounter information as unverified encounter information. (Brown discloses FIG. 3 which shows the conversation GUI at an instance when the patient provides an ambiguous input (the processed encounter information in real-time during the encounter) and the virtual assistant seeks to clarify what the patient meant in the preceding input (labeling the processed encounter information as unverified encounter information). – paras 18, 34, 73; FIG. 3)
Regarding Claim 12, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an approval for the unverified encounter information from a qualified user; (Brown discloses that the patient (a qualified user) may select a clarification element (receiving an approval for the unverified encounter information). – paras 73-74; FIG. 3)
and labeling the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval. (Brown discloses that the patient may select a clarification element, and upon selection, the system receives the user input (labeling the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval). For example, figure 4 shows that after the patient selects a clarification element, the interface presents content in response to the patient’s selection. – paras 73-75; FIGs. 3-4)
Regarding Claim 13, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: inferring information needed to perform the task from the updated participant information. (Brown discloses interpreting the patients input (inferring information needed to perform the task) with regards to the context (from the updated participant information). – paras 82, 113)
Regarding Claim 15, Brown discloses the following limitations:
A computer system comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to process participant information associated with an encounter participant, wherein processing the participant information comprises: obtaining encounter information during an encounter with the encounter participant via one or more of an audio system and a machine vision system deployed adjacent to the encounter participant; (Brown discloses a conversation user interface that enables patients to better understand their healthcare by integrating diagnosis, treatment, medication management, and payment, through a system (including one or more processors (A computer system comprising: a processor) and various memories (a memory)) that uses a virtual assistant to engage in conversation with the patient. As part of this assistance, a conversation graphical user interface (GUI) is employed by the virtual healthcare assistant that enables users to better understand their interactions with the assistant, particularly when speech input and output is involved. The conversation GUI may capture data inputs (obtaining encounter information) such as audio or speech input (an audio system) from the patient (an encounter participant), as well as gesture or emotive input if equipped with a camera or other sensor (a machine vision system). Both the patient (an encounter participant) and/or the medical professional (an encounter participant) may interact with the electronic device. – abstract; paras 10, 17, 50, 52-55, 95; FIG. 2A)
accessing the participant information stored in a resource; (Brown discloses that the virtual assistant may identify context associated with the patient or with a session of the patient on the platform of the healthcare entities. Where the context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, or the like (accessing participant information stored in a resource). – paras 95, 113)
processing the encounter information in real-time; (Brown discloses a communication flow between the patient via their electronic device and the virtual assistant service. FIG. 6 for example shows the patient has input that they “don’t feel well” and the virtual assistant responds with a query “what is the matter” (processing the encounter information in real-time).– paras 21, 58, 78; FIGs. 2A-2B, 6)
updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter; (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant helps manage personal healthcare records. The conversation GUI may provide the interface for entering information into the personal healthcare records (updating the participant information) and may assist the patient in providing complete information as well as suggesting an appropriate category or location within the personal healthcare records. The diagnostic application 902 may access the medical records of the patient (e.g., the context) when determining a diagnosis for the patient (updating the participant information with the encounter information). The diagnosis is presented by the diagnostic application 902 in the conversation GUI and may be based on real-time communication between the electronic device 104 and a medical professional (in real-time during the encounter). – paras 11, 56, 95)
processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task; (Brown discloses that the conversation GUI may capture audio or speech input from the patient (processing a free-form input from a user). The virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task, for example, the patient may instruct the virtual assistant and say “I want to check in.” (processing a free-form input from a user to identify a task). – abstract; paras 13, 37, 50, 81-82; FIG. 7B)
and determining a query to be presented to the user regarding the task based on the free- form input, the task, and the updated participant information. (Brown discloses that the virtual-assistant service may determine a suitable response to provide to the patient (determining a query to be presented to the user) based on what the patient input is (based on the free-form input). This response may be determined by identifying an intent of the patients query (the task) with reference to the concepts and one or more pieces of the context (the updated participant information), and then by mapping the determined intent along with one or more same or different pieces of the context 708 to produce the response 710. – paras 81-82; FIG. 7B)
Regarding Claim 16, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein updating the participant information with the encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises updating the participant information before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task. (Brown discloses that the system may convey information collected from the patient (the encounter information) to a medical professional who is available to review (updating the participant information) and respond (before determining the query to be presented to the user regarding the task). This may also be done automatically by the diagnostic application without the need for a medical professional. For example, the dialog representation 120(1) provides a response (the query to be presented to the user regarding the task) to the patient's previous query. The response may be based on medical records or prescription information associated with the patient 102 (updating the participant information before the query). – paras 69, 95)
Regarding Claim 17, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein updating the participant information with the processed encounter information in real-time during the encounter comprises labeling the processed encounter information as unverified encounter information. (Brown discloses that the patient may select a clarification element, and upon selection, the system receives the user input (labeling the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval). For example, figure 4 shows that after the patient selects a clarification element, the interface presents content in response to the patient’s selection. – paras 73-75; FIGs. 3-4)
Regarding Claim 19, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to: infer information needed to perform the task from the updated participant information. (Brown discloses interpreting the patients input (inferring information needed to perform the task) with regards to the context (from the updated participant information). – paras 82, 113)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Vdovjak et al. (US 20110246238).
Regarding Claim 4, Brown discloses all the limitations above, however, does not disclose the following limitations met by Vdovjak:
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: identifying a conflict between the unverified encounter information and the participant information; and determining a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict. (Vdovjak teaches calculating a likelihood ratio indicating a probability of each input record matching each of the collected records. The input records (the unverified encounter information) are compared with a collection of previously input records (the participant information). If the ratio is less than the accept threshold and also more than the reject threshold, then the record is flagged (identifying a conflict), and the record will be placed on an exception list. Records on this exception list will be submitted for a manual review. Such a manual review may comprise a determination being made as to whether a match between two records placed on the exception list should be accepted or rejected (determining a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict), and attaching an assertion to the pair of records. This assertion should be entered manually into a computer. – abstract; paras 7-8, 18, 20, 34)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant requesting a user to clarify an ambiguous input as disclosed by Brown to incorporate a manual review by the user to reconcile healthcare records as taught by Vdovjak in order to enable medical records to follow a patient as they travel between multiple healthcare providers. (see Vdovjak para 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Brown and Vdovjak disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a conflict between the unverified encounter information and the participant information; and determining a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict.
(Vdovjak teaches calculating a likelihood ratio indicating a probability of each input record matching each of the collected records. The input records (the unverified encounter information) are compared with a collection of previously input records (the participant information). If the ratio is less than the accept threshold and also more than the reject threshold, then the record is flagged (identifying a conflict), and the record will be placed on an exception list. Records on this exception list will be submitted for a manual review. Such a manual review may comprise a determination being made as to whether a match between two records placed on the exception list should be accepted or rejected (determining a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict), and attaching an assertion to the pair of records. This assertion should be entered manually into a computer. – abstract; paras 7-8, 18, 20, 34)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant requesting a user to clarify an ambiguous input as disclosed by Brown to incorporate a manual review by the user to reconcile healthcare records as taught by Vdovjak in order to enable medical records to follow a patient as they travel between multiple healthcare providers. (see Vdovjak para 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Brown and Vdovjak disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a conflict between the unverified encounter information and the participant information; determine a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict; (Vdovjak teaches calculating a likelihood ratio indicating a probability of each input record matching each of the collected records. The input records (the unverified encounter information) are compared with a collection of previously input records (the participant information). If the ratio is less than the accept threshold and also more than the reject threshold, then the record is flagged (identify a conflict), and the record will be placed on an exception list. Records on this exception list will be submitted for a manual review. Such a manual review may comprise a determination being made as to whether a match between two records placed on the exception list should be accepted or rejected (determine a verification query to be presented to the user to resolve the conflict), and attaching an assertion to the pair of records. This assertion should be entered manually into a computer. – abstract; paras 7-8, 18, 20, 34)
receive an approval for the unverified encounter information from a qualified user; (Brown discloses that the patient (a qualified user) may select a clarification element (receive an approval for the unverified encounter information). – paras 73-74; FIG. 3)
and label the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval. (Brown discloses that the patient may select a clarification element, and upon selection, the system receives the user input (label the unverified encounter information as verified encounter information based on the approval). For example, figure 4 shows that after the patient selects a clarification element, the interface presents content in response to the patient’s selection. – paras 73-75; FIGs. 3-4)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant requesting a user to clarify an ambiguous input as disclosed by Brown to incorporate a manual review by the user to reconcile healthcare records as taught by Vdovjak in order to enable medical records to follow a patient as they travel between multiple healthcare providers. (see Vdovjak para 4).
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown in view of NPL-1 (Record retrieval. U.S. Legal Support. (2011, June 3). https://www.uslegalsupport.com/record-retrieval/).
Regarding Claim 7, Brown discloses all the limitations above and further discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented of claim 1, wherein the resource comprises an electronic health record system, a medical decision support service, an order fulfillment system,…. (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task such as maintaining electronic health records (an electronic health record system – paras 13, 113), assisting with pharmacy refills (an order fulfillment system – paras 13, 97). The application may further access and present clinical guidelines, medical research, nutrition information, etc. (a medical decision support service – paras 13, 29, 53). The context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, and the like. – paras 13, 29, 53, 97, 113)
Brown does not disclose the following limitations met by NPL-1:
and a medical information retrieval services. (NPL-1 teaches a service for requesting health records (a medical information retrieval services) for legal matters. The U.S. Legal Support Record Retrieval team ensures clients have the records they need. – pages 1-2 of provided copy)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant obtaining health records as disclosed by Brown to incorporate the use of a service for requesting health records as taught by NPL-1 in order to ensure clients have the records they need when they need them (see NPL-1 page 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Brown and NPL-1 disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 8, wherein the resource comprises an electronic health record system, a medical decision support service, an order fulfillment system,… (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task such as maintaining electronic health records (an electronic health record system – paras 13, 113), assisting with pharmacy refills (an order fulfillment system – paras 13, 97). The application may further access and present clinical guidelines, medical research, nutrition information, etc. (a medical decision support service – paras 13, 29, 53). The context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, and the like. – paras 13, 29, 53, 97, 113)
Brown does not disclose the following limitations met by NPL-1:
and a medical information retrieval services. (NPL-1 teaches a service for requesting health records (a medical information retrieval services) for legal matters. The U.S. Legal Support Record Retrieval team ensures clients have the records they need. – pages 1-2 of provided copy)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant obtaining health records as disclosed by Brown to incorporate the use of a service for requesting health records as taught by NPL-1 in order to ensure clients have the records they need when they need them (see NPL-1 page 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Brown and NPL-1 disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 15, wherein the resource comprises an electronic health record system, a medical decision support service, an order fulfillment system,… (Brown discloses that the virtual healthcare assistant may help with essentially any healthcare task such as maintaining electronic health records (an electronic health record system – paras 13, 113), assisting with pharmacy refills (an order fulfillment system – paras 13, 97). The application may further access and present clinical guidelines, medical research, nutrition information, etc. (a medical decision support service – paras 13, 29, 53). The context may include medical records of the patient, prescription medication for the patient, healthcare providers for the patient, readings of medical devices used by the patient, insurance records of the patient, and the like. – paras 13, 29, 53, 97, 113)
Brown does not disclose the following limitations met by NPL-1:
and a medical information retrieval services. (NPL-1 teaches a service for requesting health records (a medical information retrieval services) for legal matters. The U.S. Legal Support Record Retrieval team ensures clients have the records they need. – pages 1-2 of provided copy)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual assistant obtaining health records as disclosed by Brown to incorporate the use of a service for requesting health records as taught by NPL-1 in order to ensure clients have the records they need when they need them (see NPL-1 page 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY VANDER WOUDE whose telephone number is (703)756-4684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights