DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim do not fall under or within a statutory category of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter). In particular, the claims are directed to a “computer readable medium” wherein no specific meaning of the term is provided in the written description. While the description cites statutory examples of computer readable media (i.e., floppy disk, compact disc, hard disk, DVD, ROM, RAM, magnetic tape, etc.), the Office notes that given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the specification describing exemplary embodiments for the computer readable media, and their ordinary meaning in their ordinary usage as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claims are considered to be including both transitory and non-transitory media, and a transitory medium does not fall into any of the four said statutory categories of invention.
Accordingly, the Offices advices Applicant to amend the claim language to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium / media” rather than “computer readable medium / media” per se to in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory claim requirements. The scope of the disclosure given the state-of-the-art covers both transitory and non-transitory media, and the suggested amendment limits the claim(s) to eligible (non-transitory) embodiments.
Claim Objections
The combination of claim(s) 4, 5 and 7 (and similarly 13, 14 and 16) is/are objected to as a ‘unit’ as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Alternatively, the combination of claim(s) 6, 7, 8 and 9 (and similarly claims 15, 16, 17 and 18) objected to as a ‘unit’ as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Yuzefovich et al (hereinafter Yuzefovich), US Patent Publication 20140050307 A1 (publication date February 2014).
As per claim{s} 1, 10, 19, 21, 22, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the claimed invention, such as a method comprising:
establishing, by a first electronic device, a communication session with a second electronic device (Yuzefovich: e.g., a {call} application may provide a communication session platform for a first participant to communicate to a second recipient in a service provider capacity. For instance, a doctor, lawyer or other service provider may initiate a ‘call application’ on a their user device {smartphone} and the device may transmit a communication session request to another user device of a patient or client, via the call application) [Abstract] (e.g., Referring to FIG. 2B, the smartphone application 250 may now provide an option to setup a ‘call’ with a particular patient, client and/or customer via menu option 252. The client may be part of a list of clients to be called via the automated application per the user's request. For example, the doctor may have multiple patients to call-back to confirm pain, medication results, post-surgery recovery, etc., and the patient's may be part of a list of patients accessible as a record stored in a remote database to the phone application…In operation, the doctor may permit the application to ‘initiate and select a first patient to call’ in the list of patients who are part of a task list to call-back and talk about their current condition. The application may then commence by referencing the patient's telephone number and ‘dialing’ the number. Once the patient ‘answers his or her phone’, the application may then initiate an automated response menu or interactive voice response function that asks the patient a question(s) and awaits a response prior to asking more questions or confirming the patient has consented to the rules of the call) [0027-0028; Fig. 2B] (e.g., ‘Initiate Call to Next Customer / Patient’_252) [Fig. 2b] (e.g., ‘Initiate Smartphone Application’_412 [Wingdings font/0xE0] ‘Automatically Call Patients Phone’_414) [Fig. 4];
receiving, by the first electronic device, a request to record the communication session with the second electronic device; and providing, by the first electronic device and responsive to the request, a notification to the second electronic device that the communication session will be recorded (Yuzefovich: e.g., Once the application has been initiated, the application may identify a telephone number and dial the number 414. The application may also prepare an automated response menu that begins when the patient 115 answers the call…The automated menu may also require the user to consent to the call being recorded and used as the basis for billing purposes (i.e., consent/disclaimer 416) [0032; Fig. 4] (e.g., The doctor may ask the patient at the onset of the call whether they agree to have the call ‘recorded’ prior to engaging in any voice recording function. Such a question may satisfy the requirements of any federally or locally administered laws regarding privacy or agreement. The application may remind the doctor by speaking to the doctor and/or the patient as a reminder so the patient may accept/decline to have the call recorded) [0039; Figs. 1& 6] (e.g., receive user input from Doctor 125 to transmit or ‘Initiate Automated Disclaimer / Consent’ {notification}_416 to Patient 115) [Fig. 4];
prior to recording the communication session, verifying that only the first and second electronic devices are participating in the communication session (e.g., The doctor may ask the patient at the onset of the call whether they agree to have the call ‘recorded’ prior to engaging in any voice recording function. Such a question may satisfy the requirements of any ‘federally or locally administered laws’ regarding ‘privacy’ or ‘agreement’. The application may remind the doctor by speaking to the doctor and/or the patient as a reminder so the patient may accept/decline to have the call recorded) [0039; Figs. 1& 6]; and
after providing the notification, recording, by the first electronic device, the communication session (Yuzefovich: e.g., Next, Patient 115 may ‘Confirm and Consent’_418 to the rules and procedures of the call {accept ‘consent request’ notification} and the spoken words, video and/or user selections may be stored 420 in a database of a third party transcription server 120. After the ‘authorization and consent have been confirmed’ {i.e. ‘Consent Confirmed’_418}, the patient 115 may be waiting to speak with the doctor on the phone…The content of the call may then be immediately Recorded_424 {i.e., ‘Record / Store Conversation’_424}) [0033; Fig. 4].
Claim(s) 10, 19, 21 recite substantially the same features and limitations as claim 1, is/are distinguishable only by its/their statutory category (device, non-transitory CRM, CRM), and accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 22 also recite(s) substantially the same features and limitations as claim 1, except for the additional recited feature or limitation of performing an operation with the second information, wherein the operation comprises obtaining a transcription of the recording (Yuzefovich: e.g., the method / system automatically invokes a graphical user interface to appear to the Doctor 125 offering ‘options’, such as "record call", "transcribe call", "add call to patient's EMR", "bill for call", etc… According to one example, the doctor 125 may initiate a record call function 132 and/or transcription service to begin so that the voice data from the call is recorded and processed by a third party transcription service operating on a third party server 120. The voice from the call may be ‘recorded’ digitally and transferred as data messages’ which are ‘transcribed’ and/or stored in the third-party transcription service server 120. The patient's EMR information may be stored in a remote databank 140 and may be linked to the ‘transcribed call’ so that the ‘textual output of the call’ {transcription} is automatically placed in the patient's EMR records and stored for later retrieval via a patient EMR database record retrieval) [0022-0023], which is nonetheless also expressly disclosed by Yuzefovich (above). The claim is also distinguishable only by its statutory category (CRM), and accordingly rejected on the same basis.
As per claim{s} 3, 12, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the claimed invention, such as the method wherein the communication session comprises an audio communication session (Yuzefovich: e.g., voice calls ) [0029,Fig. 3] (e.g., phone consultation) [0035].
As per claim{s} 6, 15, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the claimed invention, such as the method wherein the communication session further comprises an audio and video communication session (Yuzefovich: e.g., voice calls and/or video calls) [0029; Fig. 3] (e.g., video consultation) [0035].
As per claim{s} 7, 16, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the claimed invention, such as the method further comprising: prior to recording the communication session, receiving, by the first electronic device and from the second electronic device, an indication of consent to the recording (Yuzefovich: e.g., Next, Patient 115 may ‘Confirm and Consent’_418 to the rules and procedures of the call {accept ‘consent request’ notification} and the spoken words, video and/or user selections may be stored 420 in a database of a third party transcription server 120. After the ‘authorization and consent have been confirmed’ {i.e. ‘Consent Confirmed’_418}, the patient 115 may be waiting to speak with the doctor on the phone…The content of the call may then be immediately Recorded_424 {i.e., ‘Record / Store Conversation’_424}) [0033; Fig. 4]
As per claim{s} 8, 17, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the claimed invention, such as the method further comprising: while recording the communication session: generating, by the first electronic device, a transcript of the communication session (Yuzefovich: e.g., the method / system automatically invokes a graphical user interface to appear to the Doctor 125 offering ‘options’, such as "record call", "transcribe call", "add call to patient's EMR", "bill for call", etc… According to one example, the doctor 125 may initiate a record call function 132 and/or transcription service to begin so that the voice data from the call is recorded and processed by a third party transcription service operating on a third party server 120. The voice from the call may be ‘recorded’ digitally and transferred as data messages’ which are ‘transcribed’ and/or stored in the third-party transcription service server 120. The patient's EMR information may be stored in a remote databank 140 and may be linked to the ‘transcribed call’ so that the ‘textual output of the call’ {transcription} is automatically placed in the patient's EMR records and stored for later retrieval via a patient EMR database record retrieval) [0022-0023].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being disclosed by Yuzefovich in view of Obviousness.
As per claim{s} 2, 11, 20, Yuzefovich discloses substantial features of the invention as in claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose the additional feature(s) of the method further comprising: detecting that a third electronic device has joined the communication session; and responsive to the detecting, stopping the recording of the communication session.
However, the Office asserts that the feature(s) / limitations(s) are disclosed in view of Obviousness and/or to one of ordinary skill in the art, and as suggested or mentioned by Yuzefovich. In this regard, the Office notes and asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to stop or end any ongoing ‘recording’ of a ‘private’ conversation / consultation taking place between a medical physician / lawyer and their patient / client, respectively, upon detection of a ‘third user / device’ joining or potentially ‘intruding’ on the communication session, in order to comply with / satisfy “requirements of any federally or locally administered laws regarding privacy or agreement” having to do with ‘medical / professional ethics and practices and to secure private and personal information from the public.
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify Yuzefovich’s invention with the above said additional feature(s) for the motivation of ensuring that any ‘recorded’ audio / video communications {medical / professional consultations or conversations} align and/or comply with ‘federal or local laws / agreements’ mandating and guaranteeing the ‘privacy’ between a doctor / physician or lawyer and their patient(s), client(s) or customer(s) privileges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays, from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7989. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights