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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of application #17/486,309. The priority corresponds to the filing date of 27 September 2021.
Distinguished Subject Matter
The portion of claim 21 reading: “…and when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter, and when end of the telehealth encounter is determined and a switch in modality is not determined, ending tracking of the duration of the telehealth encounter responsive to determining that the telehealth visit connection has ended” is distinguished subject matter. The switching of modalities with some tracking of time is taught in the prior art, however how the limitation lays out the end of the telehealth encounter responsive to the end of telehealth encounter determination and a switch in modality not being determined in tandem with ending tracking of the duration of the encounter. This combination of limitations is not taught in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, the determination made on the record indicates that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, thus causing the medication packaging subsystem to dispense a medication. It would be necessary to receive a record indicating that the provider device and the patient device did not spend at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection prior to not dispensing the medication via the medication packaging subsystem. No such record was ever determined/created/received so it is unclear how an embodiment of the invention including the non-dispense condition would ever be activated. In claim 10, the issue here is the limitation beginning: “…and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.” Broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim indicates “the second signal” is optionally sent to the medication packaging subsystem. The embodiment of the invention that includes “the second signal” is indefinite in part because the limitation “..the second signal” lacks antecedent basis. Further, the limitation above conveys that “the second signal or the record” indicates that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, thus causing the medication packaging subsystem to dispense a medication. It would be necessary to receive a record indicating that the provider device and the patient device did not spend at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection prior to not dispensing the medication via the medication packaging subsystem. No such record was ever received so it is unclear how an embodiment of the invention including the non-dispense condition would ever be activated. The same issue exists for claim 18 as for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-9 and claims 11-17,19-21 are also rejected on the basis of their dependency on the independent claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12362066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12362066 anticipates every limitation of claim 1 and 18 of the instant application. The dependent claims depending on independent claims 1 and 18 are also rejected on the basis of their dependency.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a remote telehealth method, a remote telehealth method, and a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium for direct one or more processors, which are within a statutory category for subject matter eligibility purposes.
Step 2A1
The limitations of determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection […] has ended responsive to a user […] disconnecting from a communication channel […]; ending tracking of a duration of the telehealth encounter responsive to determining that the telehealth visit connection has ended; determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user […] or a provider […] are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection; and [… dispensing a medication into a container for a patient … when the record… indicates that a user … or the provider … spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, ..and... not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient … and the provider … not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection], as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to monitor the duration of a telehealth connection between a provider and a user to determine if sufficient time has passed prior to dispensing a medication in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. Other than reciting generic computer components, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
In total the independent claims recite the following additional elements: a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium, user device, one or more computer networks, provider device, and “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection” in claim 1 and/or claim 18, and a user device, one or more computer networks, provider device, and “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection,” in claim 10. Note that a representation of the limitations concluding independent claim 1, quoted above, was left in brackets as part of the abstract idea for conceptual continuity of the abstract idea and so that the impact of this limitation could be assessed as an additional element.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium, user device, one or more computer networks, provider device that implements the identified abstract idea. These are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recites the additional element of “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection” in claim 1 and/or claim 18, and “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection,” in claim 10. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Claim 10, for example, fails to recite details on how the record or control signal reflecting that a threshold amount of time has passed will cause the medication packaging subsystem to not dispense medication when the threshold amount of time has not passed. (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The independent claims all invoke computers and/or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing abstract idea, outlined above. (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The generality of the application of the judicial exception is high in all independent claims. For instance, all the independent claims recite judicial exceptions, and the quoted additional elements concluding the independent claims (see above) generically repeats the effect of the judicial exception in tandem with introduction of a control signal to connect the function of the generically described medication packaging subsystem (it is not described how the medication packaging subsystem achieves its function recited in the claim) thereby reciting an effect of the judicial exception and amounting to merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.
Step 2B
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, a tangible and non-transitory computer readable medium, user device, one or more computer networks, provider device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computers component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
The claims further recites the additional element of “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection” in claim 1 and/or claim 18, and “controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection,” in claim 10. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The quoted limitations fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Claim 10, for example, fails to recite details on how the record or control signal reflecting that a threshold amount of time has passed will cause the medication packaging subsystem to not dispense medication when the threshold amount of time has not passed. The quoted additional element also rehashes the effect of the abstract idea and fails to detail how the medication packaging subsystem will deliver the medication. (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The independent claims all invoke computers and/or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing abstract idea, outlined above. (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The generality of the application of the judicial exception is high in all independent claims. For instance, all the independent claims recite judicial exceptions, and the quoted additional elements concluding the independent claims (see above) generically repeat the effect of the judicial exception in tandem generically described hardware to ostensibly connect the abstract idea to the function of the generically described medication packaging subsystem (it is not described how the medication packaging subsystem dispenses the medicine) thereby reciting an effect of the judicial exception and amounting to merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims and Dependent Additional Elements
Claims 2-9, 11-17,19-21 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) receiving a certain signal, identifying a commencement time when the telehealth encounter begins, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 3 merely describes tracking the duration of the remote telehealth encounter starting at the commencement time, determining whether the user or provider leave the telehealth encounter, and pausing tracking of duration of the remote telehealth encounter. Claim 4 merely describes identifying a billing code based on the duration, the billing code submitted to one or more of an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager for one or more of billing a user or paying a certain provider. Claim 5 merely describes an additional element. Claim 6 merely describes identifying a billing code based on the duration of the remote telehealth encounter. Claim 7 merely describes resuming tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter. Claim 8 merely describes the remote telehealth encounter has ended. Claim 9 merely describes receiving an end signal. Claim 11 merely describes determining whether the telehealth encounter has switched modality. Claim 12 merely describes determining whether the telehealth encounter has switched modality includes a certain modality change. Claim 12 merely describes changing from the videoconference modality includes changing to a messaging modality. Claim 13 merely describes receiving a first signal and identifying a commencement time. Claim 14 and 20 merely describes tracking duration of the remote telehealth encounter starting at the commencement time, determining when the user or provider leaves the remote telehealth encounter, pausing tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter. Claim 15 merely describes identifying a billing code based on the duration of the remote telehealth encounter, the billing code submitted to one or more entities for one or more of billing a user or paying a provider that participated in the remote telehealth encounter. Claim 16 merely describes an additional element. Claim 17 merely describes identifying a billing code based on the duration of the remote telehealth encounter, the billing code submitted to one or more of an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager for one or more billing a user or paying a provider that participated in the encounter. Claim 19 merely describes determining whether the telehealth encounter has ended by receiving a signal, identifying a commencement time. Claim 21 merely describes determining whether a telehealth encounter has ended includes determining whether the telehealth encounter has switched modality and when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter, and when end of the telehealth encounter is determined and a switch in modality is not determined, ending tracking of the duration of the telehealth encounter responsive to determining that the telehealth visit connection has ended.
Claims 5 and 14 both contain the additional element “wherein controlling a medication packaging subsystem includes generating a control signal, a record, or both at least in part on identifying the billing code.” This was an additional element that invoked Apply it. They were analyzed using the same factors described in the independent claims. Other than this additional element, the dependent claims contain the same additional elements as the independent claims and were analyzed as per the additional elements in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney).
Regarding Claim 1
Krishnaswamy teaches:
A remote telehealth method, comprising: determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks; [Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 22 line 65-66 a range of high bandwidth services are support by a preferred embodiment. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 22 line 66-67 teaches these include: video on demand, conferencing, distance learning, and telemedicine. Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter. The dropping of the carrier is the device disconnection. Collectively Krishnaswamy, teaches determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks.]
ending tracking of a duration of the telehealth encounter responsive to determining that the telehealth visit connection has ended; [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the medica communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter.]
Krishnaswamy may not explicitly teach:
determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and a provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection;
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or a provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.
Freedman teaches:
determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and a provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection; [Freedman teaches at para. [0025] a video transaction machine will also have various audio and/or video interaction devices, including video cameras, microphones, display screens, and/or speakers to facilitate live audio and/or video communications between a user and a human or computer agent of the financial institution, referred to herein as video agent. The connection is interpreted to be the telehealth connection, with the human of the financial institution, being the provider. Freedman teaches at para. [0006] in additional aspects, the system and method will determine that a visit time associated with the first video transaction device exceeds a predetermined visit time threshold. This teaches determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection. Collectively, Freedman teaches determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman with the motivation of relating computing devices, computing systems, and computer software that will be used by an organization, such as a financial institution or other entity, to facilitate efficient allocation of video services by reducing visit times at vide service machines (Freedman at para. [0002]).
Krishnaswamy/Freedman may not explicitly teach:
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or a provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.
Feeney teaches:
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, or the record indicating that a user device or a provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection. [The limitation describing the determination made on the record indicates that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, thus causing the medication packaging subsystem to dispense a medication. It would be necessary to receive a record indicating that the provider device and the patient device did not spend at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection prior to not dispensing the medication via the medication packaging subsystem. No such record was ever determined/created/received so it is unclear how an embodiment of the invention including the non-dispense condition would ever be activated. Feeney teaches at para [0127] that interactive detailing, as used therein, means audio and/or video detailing where the pharmaceutical representative can interact with the physician remotely; this is interpreted as a telehealth system, there being no indication what a telehealth encounter must entail. Feeney teaches at para. [0207] that current admissions scheduling, billing and other like procedures are typically managed through a practice management system (PMS). Feeney teaches the sample medication subsystem can be configured to send a control signal to said one or more dispenser units to grant access to the same medication. Feeney teaches the medical product dispensing system can include a point of sale subsystem configured to manage payment information. Feeney teaches at para. [0031] the sample management subsystem of the medical product dispensing system further can be configured to relate patient information from the admission subsystem (interpreted to be the payment information) to the prescription information. The payment information is the record. Collectively, Feeney teaches and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney with the motivation that their invention also involves inventory management services, where not only data, but actual inventory of medications and supplies will be managed (Feeney at para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 18
Due to its similarity to Claim 1, Claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 2,13,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney) in view of US 11,587,688 B2 (hereafter Joao).
Regarding Claim 2
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney teach the method of claim 1. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney further teach:
wherein determining whether the telehealth encounter via the telehealth visit connection supported by the telehealth control system has ended comprises: receiving, at a telehealth control system, a first signal from at least one of the user device or the provider device to initiate the telehealth encounter via the one or more computer networks; [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter.]
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney further may not explicitly teach:
and identifying a commencement time as when both the user device and the provider device connect to a same communication channel via the one or more computer networks to remotely interact in the remote telehealth encounter via the one or more computer networks.
Joao teaches:
and identifying a commencement time as when both the user device and the provider device connect to a same communication channel via the one or more computer networks to remotely interact in the remote telehealth encounter via the one or more computer networks. [Joao at col. 15 line 46-53 teaches a healthcare provider or any number of healthcare providers will be available for a video call, a video chat sessions or a videoconference, at any given time and an individual, a patient, or a caregiver for the individual or the patient, will simply access the central processing computer, see which healthcare provider or healthcare providers are available and will immediately initiate a video call, a video chat session or a video conference, with an available healthcare provider. Joao further teaches at Figure 11 awaiting/detecting starting of a video call to a health care provider. Joao teaches at step 1101 the apparatus will await and detect the start of the video call. Joao teaches at col 67 line 54 that the video call can be initiated by the provider communication device to call the user communication device of or associated with the individual, this signal is interpreted as the first signal. Additionally, Joao teaches at col. 67 line 52 that in another preferred embodiment the video call can be initiated and will take place via the central processing computing. Collectively, this teaches identifying a commencement as when both the user device and the provider device connect to a same communication channel via the one or more computer networks to remotely interact in the remote telehealth encounter via the one or more computer networks.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network of Joao with the motivation of addressing problems associated with providing healthcare service remotely or virtually with or using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network which can facilitate communications and data and/or information exchange with and/or between an individual or a patient and a healthcare provider or a healthcare professional.
Regarding Claim 13 and 19
Due to its similarity to Claim 2, Claim 13 and 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim(s) 3,14,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney) in view of US 11,587,688 B2 (hereafter Joao) in view of US 2020/0066414 A1 (hereafter Neff) in view of US 11,521,726 B2 (hereafter Giles).
Regarding Claim 3
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao teach the method of claim 2. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao further teach:
tracking the duration of the remote telehealth encounter starting at the commencement time while both the user device and the provider device are connected to each other via a same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks; [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Tracking the duration of resource utilized during the media communication that begins with initiating a connection, is collectively taught by Krishnaswamy above, and is tracking the duration of the remote telehealth encounter starting at the commencement time while both the user device and the provider device are connected to each other via a same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks.]
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao may not explicitly teach:
determining whether one of the user device or the provider device leaves the remote telehealth encounter by disconnecting from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks while another of the user device of the provider device remains connected to the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks;
and pausing tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to determining that one of the user device or the provider device is disconnected from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks.
Neff teaches:
determining whether one of the user device or the provider device leaves the remote telehealth encounter by disconnecting from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks while another of the user device of the provider device remains connected to the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks; [Neff teaches at para. [0346] similarly, there are frequent times when a doctor or nurse sees a patient, but then leaves the room to procure supplies, to check on medications, or other necessary tasks relevant to the patient’s appointment. Neff teaches at para. [0346] in each case, there is a period of time where the patient is not interacting with a medical professional. Neff teaches at para. [0347] this will also occur during a telehealth call, when the medical professional must step away for any number of reasons. Neff teaches at para. [0347] the system will then be engaged to create a virtual waiting room, wherein the patient is provided with voice or video as they wait for additional communication from the medical professional. When the patient is provided with voice or video as they await for additional communication from the patient is the user device leaves the remote telehealth encounter by disconnecting from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network of Joao to the telehealth systems of Neff with the motivation of promoting remote meetings, which allow a sick patient to remain quarantined away from other patients yet still met with a medical practitioner to receive evaluation and treatment (Neff at para. [0003]).
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff may not explicitly teach:
and pausing tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to determining that one of the user device or the provider device is disconnected from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks.
Giles teaches:
and pausing tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to determining that one of the user device or the provider device is disconnected from the same teleconference or videoconference channel via the one or more computer networks. [Giles at col. 7 line 31-32 recording the video via live stream in real-time. Giles at col. 7 line 25 teaches that the video will be uploaded continuously in segments and if the user device loses connection to the computer the upload of the video will stop and resume once the connection is reestablished. Giles at col. 7 teaches displaying metadata about a video encounter, specifically collecting a time stamp of video generation (interpreted to be video duration).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the telehealth systems of Neff to the apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network of Joao to a system and method for monitoring drug delivery of Giles with the motivation of tracking and reporting medication usage via video live stream.
Regarding Claim 14 and 20
Due to its similarity to Claim 3, Claim 14 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim(s) 4,5,6,15,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney) in view of US 11,587,688 B2 (hereafter Joao) in view of US 2020/0066414 A1 (hereafter Neff) in view of US 11,521,726 B2 (hereafter Giles) in view of US 2016/0292370 A1 (hereafter Saric).
Regarding Claim 4
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles teach the method of claim 3. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles further teach:
using the telehealth control system having one or more processors that communicate with the medication packaging subsystem, [Feeney teaches the sample medication subsystem can be configured to send a control signal to said one or more dispenser units to grant access to the same medication.]
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles may not explicitly teach:
further comprising: identifying a billing code based on the duration of the remote telehealth encounter
the billing code submitted to one or more of an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager for one or more of billing a user or paying a provider that participated in the remote telehealth encounter.
Saric teaches:
further comprising: identifying a billing code based on the duration of the remote telehealth encounter [Saric teaches at para. [0056] at 206, the insurance billing computing system 120 will capture a start time and an end time for the telemedicine session between the patient computing device and the health care provider computing system. Saric teaches at para. [0056] such information will be used to determine the duration of the telemedicine session, which will be important for insurance billing purposes as well as for fraud detection or prevention purposes.]
the billing code submitted to one or more of an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager for one or more of billing a user or paying a provider that participated in the remote telehealth encounter. [Saric teaches at para. [0057] at 208, the insurance billing computing system 120 will capture diagnostic codes for the telemedicine session. Note that the limitation: “.. for one or more of billing a user or paying a provider that participated in the remote telehealth encounter,” is intended use. Saric teaches at para. [0076] for example, the insurance billing computing system 120 will consult information stored in database 130 that indicates, for each of one or more health care providers that participate in the telemedicine system, which insurance policies, plans, and/or providers are accepted by each of such health care providers.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the telehealth systems of Neff to the apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network of Joao to a system and method for monitoring drug delivery of Giles to the telemedicine system including insurance billing of Saric with the motivation of addressing electronic submission of the insurance claim, which can require use of an insurer-specific web-interface, which can be inefficient and challenging if performed by the patient or an inexperienced representative of the health care provider (Saric at para. [0006]).
Regarding Claim 6,15,17
Due to its similarity to Claim 4, Claim 6,15 and 17 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Saric teach the method of claim 4. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Saric further teach:
wherein controlling a medication packaging subsystem includes generating a control signal, a record, or both at least in part on identifying the billing code. [Feeney teaches at para. [0213] to obtain and successfully execute a pre-adjudication check, the subsystem will route the patient information to the pharmacy adjudication subsystem on the central system. Feeney teaches at para. [0213] in either case, a determination is made of whether the insurance information by the patient is accurate, which drugs currently stocked in the physician’s inventory are covered by the patient’s insurance plan, and a clinical interaction check (DUR) can also be performed. Feeney teaches at para. [0225] referring to Fig. 8A, after a prescription is received by the subsystem, for example as illustrated in Fig. 7 at block 716, the subsystem unlocks a dispenser door 802. Feeney teaches at para. [0225] the subsystem the dispenses, release or grants access to the prescription. Feeney teaches at Fig. 8B Item 716 script input start, Item 852 unlock door, Item 864 sensing the take, Item 866 determining if the bottle matches the script, Item 868 a scan prompt (bottle bar code), Item 870 determining if the bar code matches, Item 873 notifying use and adding activity to exception report, Item 800 returning med. The bar code of the medicine is interpreted as the billing code, there being no requirement as a result of broadest reasonable interpretation of what the billing code must entail. Collectively, Feeney teaches controlling a medication packaging subsystem includes generating a record at least in part on identifying the billing code. The record generated is the exception report taught above by Feeney.]
Regarding Claim 16
Due to its similarity to Claim 5, Claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim(s) 7,8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney) in view of US 11,587,688 B2 (hereafter Joao) in view of US 2020/0066414 A1 (hereafter Neff) in view of US 11,521,726 B2 (hereafter Giles) in view of US 2016/0269349 A1 (hereafter Bolinger).
Regarding Claim 7
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles teach the method of claim 3. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles further teach:
further comprising resuming tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to both the user device and provider device being connected to each other again by a different channel compared to the communication channel via the one or more computer networks.
Bolinger teaches:
further comprising resuming tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to both the user device and provider device being connected to each other again by a different channel compared to the communication channel via the one or more computer networks. [Bolinger teaches at Fig. 1 conversation lifetime involves switching from Item 110 session video chat to Item 120 session shared imaging to Item 130 session instant messaging. This teaches when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched. Bolinger teaches at Fig. 1 gaps of time between the session shared imaging and the session instant messaging modalities. Bolinger teaches tracking the time of the encounter (interpreted to be telehealth encounter) by the horizontal time axis on the graph in Fig. 1. Bolinger teaches resuming tracking of the time of the different telehealth session multi-modal encounters by the shaded boxes demarcating different parts of the conversation lifetime tracked by the horizontal axis. Collectively, this teaches further comprising resuming tracking of the duration of the remote telehealth encounter responsive to both the user device and provider device being connected to each other again by a different channel compared to the communication channel via the one or more computer networks. The telehealth encounter is interpreted to be the totality of communication modes over time taught by Bolinger at Fig. 1. Conversation lifetime is interpreted as tracking duration because the horizontal axis (time) taught by Bolinger at Fig. 1 allows tracking duration of the videoconference encounter.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the telehealth systems of Neff to the apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network of Joao to a system and method for monitoring drug delivery of Giles to the system and method for orchestrating and correlating multiple software-controlled collaborative sessions through a unified conversational interface of Bolinger with the motivation of addressing this kind of federation, which can scatter information about how individuals are interacting with one another across a network of systems (Bolinger at para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 8
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Bolinger teach the method of claim 7. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Bolinger further teach:
wherein determining whether the remote telehealth encounter has ended is based on the user device and the provider device disconnecting from the different channel via the one or more computer networks. [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter. The dropping of the carrier is interpreted as the provider device connection and user device disconnecting. Collectively Krishnaswamy, determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks.]
Regarding Claim 9
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Bolinger teach the method of claim 8. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Joao/Neff/Giles/Bolinger further teach:
wherein disconnecting from the different channel includes receiving an end signal from the user device. [Krishnaswamy teaches at Fig. 55A Item 5520 indicating end of call and at Item 522 presenting end call menu. This teaches wherein disconnecting from the different channel includes receiving an end signal from the user device.]
Claim(s) 10,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5867494 A (hereafter Krishnaswamy) in view of US 2016/0191857 A1 (hereafter Freedman) in view of US 2002/0032582 A1 (hereafter Feeney) in view of US 2016/0269349 A1 (hereafter Bolinger).
Regarding Claim 10
Krishnaswamy teaches:
A remote telehealth method, comprising: determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks or whether the telehealth encounter has switched modality; [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter. The dropping of the carrier is interpreted as the device disconnection. Collectively Krishnaswamy, determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks.]
[…]
when end of the telehealth encounter is determined, ending tracking of a duration of the telehealth encounter responsive to determining that the telehealth visit connection has ended; [Krishnaswamy teaches at Claim 1 a method for media communication over a hybrid network which includes a switched network, a packet switched network, and a directory of internet protocol addresses for the packet switched network, the method comprising the steps of:…(a) establishing multicast communication among a plurality of parties for media communication among a plurality of parties in a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) format utilizing the hybrid network and the directory of internet protocol addresses, wherein the media communication includes video, audio, and data information; (b) transmitting the audio information from a first party participating in the media communication to at least one other party participating in the media communication; (c) transmitting the video information from the first party to at least one other user; and (d) storing a record based on the first party and the at least one other party and media features utilized for routing the media communication over the hybrid network, wherein the record also contains information on duration of resource utilized during the media communication. Krishnaswamy teaches at col. 125, line 60-62 teaches when one connection drops carrier, the video-call is complete, and the modem carrier for the remaining call is dropped. The video-call is interpreted as the telehealth encounter. The dropping of the carrier is interpreted as the device disconnection. Collectively Krishnaswamy, determining whether a telehealth encounter via a telehealth visit connection supported by a telehealth control system has ended responsive to a user device disconnecting from a communication channel via one or more computer networks.]
[…].
Krishnaswamy may not explicitly teach:
[…]
when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter;
[…]
determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device or a provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection;
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.
Freedman teaches:
[…]
determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device or a provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection; [Freedman teaches at para. [0025] a video transaction machine will also have various audio and/or video interaction devices, including video cameras, microphones, display screens, and/or speakers to facilitate live audio and/or video communications between a user and a human or computer agent of the financial institution, referred to herein as video agent. The connection is interpreted to be the telehealth connection, with the human of the financial institution, being the provider. This teaches the user and provider device are connected. Freedman teaches at para. [0006] in additional aspects, the system and method will determine that a visit time associated with the first video transaction device exceeds a predetermined visit time threshold. The total time considered by the threshold is interpreted as the telehealth visit connection. This teaches determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection. Note that the user device being connected to the provider device does not, by broadest reasonable interpretation restrict the encounter to the time spent talking to the patient (e.g. time waiting for human agent in the encounter would also be included here). Collectively, Freedman teaches determining whether the duration is at least as long as a threshold time for the telehealth visit connection to ensure that the user device and provider device are connected at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.]
[…].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman with the motivation of relating computing devices, computing systems, and computer software that will be used by an organization, such as a financial institution or other entity, to facilitate efficient allocation of video services by reducing visit times at vide service machines (Freedman at para. [0002]).
Krishnaswamy/Freedman may not explicitly teach:
[…]
when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter;
[…]
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection.
Feeney teaches:
and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, the medication packaging subsystem not dispensing the medication responsive to the patient device and the provider device not spending at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection. [“The second signal or the record” indicates that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection, thus causing the medication packaging subsystem to dispense a medication. It would be necessary to receive a record indicating that the provider device and the patient device did not spend at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection prior to not dispensing the medication via the medication packaging subsystem. No such record was ever received so it is unclear how an embodiment of the invention including the non-dispense condition would ever be activated. Feeney teaches at para [0127] that interactive detailing, as used therein, means audio and/or video detailing where the pharmaceutical representative can interact with the physician remotely; this is interpreted as a telehealth system, there being no indication what a telehealth encounter must entail. Feeney teaches at para. [0207] that current admissions scheduling, billing and other like procedures are typically managed through a practice management system (PMS). Feeney teaches the sample medication subsystem can be configured to send a control signal to said one or more dispenser units to grant access to the same medication. Feeney teaches the medical product dispensing system can include a point of sale subsystem configured to manage payment information. Feeney teaches at para. [0031] the sample management subsystem of the medical product dispensing system further can be configured to relate patient information from the admission subsystem to the prescription information. The payment information is the record. Collectively, Feeney teaches and controlling a medication packaging subsystem to automatically dispense a medication into a container for a patient with the telehealth control system communicating a control signal, a record, or both to the medication packaging subsystem, the second signal or the record indicating that the patient device or the provider device spent at least the threshold time in the telehealth visit connection…].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney with the motivation that their invention also involves inventory management services, where not only data, but actual inventory of medications and supplies will be managed (Feeney at para. [0003]).
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney may not explicitly teach:
when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter;
Bolinger teaches:
[…]
when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched, continuing to track duration of the telehealth encounter; [Bolinger teaches at Fig. 1 conversation lifetime involves switching from Item 110 session video chat to Item 120 session shared imaging to Item 130 session instant messaging. This teaches when modality of the telehealth encounter is determined to be switched. The telehealth encounter is interpreted to be the totality of communication modes over time taught by Bolinger at Fig. 1. Conversation lifetime is interpreted as tracking duration because the horizontal axis (time) taught by Bolinger at Fig. 1 tracks duration of the videoconference encounter.]
[…].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication system architecture of Krishnaswamy to the dynamic allocation of video resources of Freedman to the system for medication dispensing and integrated data management of Feeney to the system and method for orchestrating and correlating multiple software-controlled collaborative sessions through a unified conversational interface of Bolinger with the motivation of addressing this kind of federation, which can scatter information about how individuals are interacting with one another across a network of systems (Bolinger at para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Bolinger teach the method of claim 10. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Bolinger further teach:
wherein determining whether the telehealth encounter has switched modality include changing from a videoconference modality to a non-videoconference modality. [Bolinger teaches at Fig. 1 conversation lifetime involves switching from Item 110 session video chat to Item 120 session shared imaging to Item 130 session instant messaging.]
Regarding Claim 12
Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Bolinger teach the method of claim 11. Krishnaswamy/Freedman/Feeney/Bolinger further teach:
wherein changing from the videoconference modality includes changing to a messaging modality. [Bolinger teaches at Fig. 1 conversation lifetime involves switching from Item 110 session video chat to Item 120 session shared imaging to Item 130 session instant messaging.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220199267 A1 (hereafter Subramanian) teaches on the subject of medical communications and audio-visual communications with a patient, which is tangentially related.
US 20180262550 A1 (hereafter Wasnick). Wasnick teaches a method for implementing control of medical device in telehealth system, involves receiving data from medical device and transmitting data from medical device to second application by node application through server. The integration of medical devices into the telehealth system is tangentially related.
TW I343798 B (hereafter Huang) teaches at telemedicine/telehealth system involves authentication, which is tangentially related to the subject matter herein.
Garg (Implementation of Telemedicine in a Tertiary Hospital-Based Ambulatory Practice in Detroit During the COIVD-19 Pandemic: Observational Study) teaches at Fig. 4 a histogram showing the most common billing codes used to associated with various types of visits of differing durations.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN ISAAC EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-5972. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-7:00pm, off Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from 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.
/T.I.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights