DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, as the recite specific, computer implemented approach for coordinating appointment scheduling and clinical assessment using networked computing devices that require concrete operations including generating scheduling tasks based on member data, transmitting the tasks using an API, automatically launching applications, receiving device based user inputs, generating and presenting information on a provider interface. Examiner asserts that that the computer implementation of the abstract idea recites the use of insignificant additional elements in a non-specific configuration in the system of connected computing devices as described in the rejection provided below. The use of these generic computing devices and components such as the user interface applications and API to perform the abstract idea to alleviate the constraints of scheduling does not recite a technical improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Applicant further argues that claim 9 as currently amended reinforces the technological nature of the invention. Examiner asserts that these amendments do not recite a technical improvement, as the display of information in a synchronized, parallel manner as claimed recites the use of a generic network connection between devices. Merely automating the process of the application using generic computing components does not recite a technical improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” As previously stated, the controlling of execution state, coordinating of distributed application instances and ensuring timely availability of the interfaces and data is not recited in a specific manner that demonstrates a technology improvement beyond generic use of the computing components.
Applicant further argues that the ordered combinations of limitations with the API driven tasks, computed execution events, automated nature, and cross instance synchronization is not well understood, routine, and conventional activity as the claims yield a concrete technological improvement in care coordination workflows and that the claims are not rejected under 35 USC 1002 or 103. Examiner further asserts that as previously noted the components do not demonstrate a technology improvement. Additionally, a prior art rejection with references is not the only way to demonstrate that claims recite well understood, routine, and conventional activity. As noted in the rejection of this Office Action under the Step 2B analysis, the recitation of the Applicant’s Specification and use of relevant court decisions are sufficient to demonstrate well understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), “Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1317; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional").”
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 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 9-14 are related to a system, and claims 1-8, 21 are also related to a method (i.e., a process), claims 15-19 recite non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions. Accordingly, the claims fall within the statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 9 recites:
A system associated with a service provider, the service provider capable of providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, the first services including causing presentation, on a user interface, of information associated with the members of care coordination tasks, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, based at least in part on member data associated with a member of the members, that the member is due for at least one of a procedure or a clinical visit;
identify first data associated with medical locations and medical providers that are qualified to accommodate the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
identify second data associated with scheduling information related to the first data;
identify, based at least in part on the first data and the member data, third data associated with insurance coverage information;
determine, based at least in part the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers that is associated with the member;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, generate, by a first computing device, a scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member,
based at least in part on the generating the scheduling task, send, by the first computing device via a network, the scheduling task to an API configured to provide functionalities from the first computing device to a second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the API, by the second computing device, the scheduling task;
based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to transition from an inactive execution state to an active execution state and automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
based at least in part on the causing the first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to run on the second computing device, cause, by the second computing device, the scheduling task to be presented on a portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, cause first co-pay information to be presented on a second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the computing device, the first co-pay information indicating a first out-of-pocket cost the member will pay for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit as performed by the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the computing device via the user interface, a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member;
based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, cause a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit;
determine, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation;
generate a clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation;
generate, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation;
cause an indication of the clinical assessment to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the indication of the clinical assessment indicating that the clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit is generated; and
cause an indication of the second co-pay information to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider,
wherein execution of the instructions further causes synchronization of scheduling state data between the first instance of the application running on the second computing device and a second instance of the application running on a member computing device, such that scheduling status changes initiated via either instance are automatically propagated to the other instance; and
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to compute the threshold time as a scheduled execution event based at least in part on stored scheduling data associated with the member and/or a plurality of members and on a medical provider preference, the scheduled execution event defining a time at which execution of the first instance of the application is automatically triggered on the second computing device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior as the following abstract limitations with emphasis added are related to a service provider capable of providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, the first services including causing presentation of information associated with the members of care coordination tasks:
“determining” that a member is due for a procedure or a visit based on their member data, which is related to an analysis,
“identifying” first data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” second data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” third data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“determining” based on the first, second, and third data, available qualified medical providers as described, which is related to an analysis,
“generating” a scheduling task indicating that the least one of a procedure or the clinical visit to be scheduled for the member based on the determining of the available qualified medical provider, which is an analysis of the previous determination of available qualified providers to make a scheduling task,
“sending” and “receiving” the scheduling task based on the generating of the scheduling task, which is abstract limitation related to an interaction and giving/obtaining information related to the task,
Causing the “presenting” of a scheduling task, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information of scheduling to another person,
“presenting” the first co-pay information which indicates a first-out-of-pocket cost based on determining the available qualified provider, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person,
“receiving” a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member, which is an abstract limitation related to an interaction of a person for receiving a request,
“determine”, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate” a clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate”, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“presenting” an indication of the clinical assessment as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person,
“presenting” an indication of the second co-pay information as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person,
“synchronization” of scheduling state data, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the schedule changing,
“compute” the threshold time as a scheduled execution event based at least in part on stored scheduling data associated with the member and/or a plurality of members and on a medical provider preference, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the scheduled execution event for a threshold time based on scheduling data.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for a service provider capable of providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, the first services including causing presentation of information associated with the members of care coordination tasks, and therefore recite managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), where examples such as “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” recite managing personal behavior. The example is relatively analogous to the instant application in that the abstract limitations and steps are followed when performing an action related to the care of a patient such as causing presentation of information associated with the members of care coordination tasks.
Additionally, regarding claim 1:
A method performed at least partially by a first computing device associated with a service provider to cause presentation, on a user interface, of information associated with a member, the method comprising:
storing, in a location that is accessible to the first computing device, member data associated with a member of the service provider;
determining, by the first computing device and based at least in part on the member data, that the member is due for at least one of a procedure or a clinical visit;
identifying first data associated with medical locations and medical providers that are qualified to accommodate the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
identifying second data associated with scheduling information related to the first data;
identifying, based at least on the first data and the member data, third data associated with insurance coverage information;
determining, based at least in part on the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers capable of performing the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, generate, by the first computing device, a scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member,
based at least in part on the generating the scheduling task, sending, by the first computing device via a network, the scheduling task to an API configured to provide functionalities from the first computing device to a second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the API, by the second computing device, the scheduling task;
based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, causing, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
based at least in part on the causing the first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to run on the second computing device, causing, by the second computing device, the scheduling task to be presented on a first portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, causing, by the first computing device via a network, first co-pay information to be presented on a second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device, the first co-pay information indicating a first out-of-pocket cost the member will pay for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit as performed by the available qualified medical provider;
receiving, by the first computing device and via the user interface displayed on the second computing device associated with the available qualified medical provider, a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member;
based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, causing, by the first computing device, a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the second computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit;
determining, by the first computing device and based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation;
generating, by the first computing device, the clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation;
generating, by the first computing device and based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation;
causing, by the first computing device, an indication of the clinical assessment to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the indication of the clinical assessment indicating that the clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit is generated; and
causing, by the first computing device, an indication of the second co-pay information to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider,
wherein responsive to scheduling the clinical visit, the service provider updates a second instance of the application on a second computing device with appointment information and causes a first indication of the scheduled appointment to be presented via the first instance on the provider device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior as the following abstract limitations are related to causing presentation of information associated with a member:
“determining” that a member is due for a procedure or a visit based on their member data, which is related to an analysis,
“identifying” first data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” second data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” third data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“determining”, based at least in part on the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers capable of performing the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, which is related to an analysis,
“generating” a scheduling task indicating that the least one of a procedure or the clinical visit to be scheduled for the member based on the determining of the available qualified medical provider, which is an analysis of the previous determination of available qualified providers to make a scheduling task,
“sending” and “receiving” the scheduling task based on the generating of the scheduling task, which is abstract limitation related to an interaction and giving/obtaining information related to the task,
Causing the “presenting” of a scheduling task, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information of scheduling to another person,
“presenting” the first co-pay information which indicates a first-out-of-pocket cost based on determining the available qualified provider, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person,
“receiving” a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member, which is an abstract limitation related to an interaction of a person for receiving a request,
“determine”, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate” a clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate”, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“presenting” an indication of the clinical assessment as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person,
“presenting” an indication of the second co-pay information as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing of information to another person.
wherein responsive to scheduling the clinical visit, “causing” a first indication of the scheduled appointment to be “presented”, which recites abstract limitations of analysis of the scheduling and then presenting information of the appointment to another person.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for causing presentation of information associated with a member, and therefore recite managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), where examples such as “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” recite managing personal behavior. The example is relatively analogous to the instant application in that the abstract limitations and steps are followed when performing an action related to the care of a patient such as causing presentation of information associated with a member.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Additionally, regarding claim 15:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first computing device associated with a service provider capable of providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, cause the first computing device to:
determine, based at least in part on member data associated with a member of the members, that the member is due for at least one of a procedure or a clinical visit;
identify first data associated with medical locations and medical providers that are qualified to accommodate the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
identify second data associated with scheduling information related to the first data;
identify, based at least in part on the first data and the member data, third data associated with insurance coverage information;
determine, based at least in part on the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers that is capable of performing the procedure or the clinical visit;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, generate, by the first computing device, a scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member;
based at least in part on the generating the scheduling task, send, by the first computing device via a network, the scheduling task to an API configured to provide functionalities from the first computing device to a second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the API, by the second computing device, the scheduling task; based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to transition from an inactive execution state to an active execution state and automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
cause, by the second computing device, the scheduling task to be presented on a portion of a user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device, the scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member;
cause first co-pay information to be presented on a second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device, the first co-pay information indicating a first out-of-pocket cost the member will pay for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit as performed by the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the second computing device via the user interface, a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member;
based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, causing a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the second computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit;
determine, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation;
generate the clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation;
generate, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co- pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation;
cause an indication of the clinical assessment to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the indication of the clinical assessment indicating that the clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit is generated; and
cause an indication of the second co-pay information to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider,
wherein execution of the instructions further causes: sending, via a second instance of the application on a member computing device, a notification to schedule the clinical visit;
receiving, via the second instance, an input comprising a date and time for the appointment; and updating the member data based at least in part on the input.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior as the following abstract limitations are related to providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider:
“determining” that a member is due for a procedure or a visit based on their member data, which is related to an analysis,
“identifying” first data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” second data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“identifying” third data as described, which is related to an observation and analysis,
“determining” based on the first, second, and third data, available qualified medical providers as described, which is related to an analysis,
“generating” a scheduling task indicating that the least one of a procedure or the clinical visit to be scheduled for the member based on the determining of the available qualified medical provider, which is an analysis of the previous determination of available qualified providers to make a scheduling task,
“sending” and “receiving” the scheduling task based on the generating of the scheduling task, which is abstract limitation related to an interaction and giving/obtaining information related to the task,
Causing the “presenting” of a scheduling task, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing/interaction of information of scheduling to another person,
“presenting” the first co-pay information which indicates a first-out-of-pocket cost based on determining the available qualified provider, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing/interaction of information to another person,
“receiving” a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member, which is an abstract limitation related to an interaction of a person for receiving a request,
“determine”, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate” a clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“generate”, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation, which is related to an analysis,
“presenting” an indication of the clinical assessment as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing/interaction of information to another person,
“presenting” an indication of the second co-pay information as described, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis and showing/interaction of information to another person,
“sending” a notification to schedule the clinical visit, which is an abstract limitation of an interaction or sending of the information to another user,
“receiving” an input comprising a date and time for the appointment, and updating the member data based on the input, which recites abstract limitations of the interactions with the user for the appointment and further analysis related to the updating of the member data.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, and therefore recite managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(C.), where examples such as “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)” recite managing personal behavior. The example is relatively analogous to the instant application in that the abstract limitations and steps are followed when performing an action related to the care of a patient such as providing services to members.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 2 recites the steps of “updating” the member data based on at least one input such as a first date associated with a future appointment for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea of the management of the healthcare interaction between a member and a medical provider. Claims 3, 11, 17 recite “determining” that the medication is up for renewal and “generating” a medication renewal task associated with the medication, further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claims 4 and 12 recite “updating” the member data based at least in part on an input, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claims 5 and 19 further recites the “determining” the member is associated with the procedure step and further cites “determining” a periodic interval associated with the procedure wherein the interval is based on the clinical guideline and “determining” that the member has not previously undergone the procedure, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claims 6 and 18 recites “determining” based on at least in part on the start date and the end date, one or more payments associated with the financial report, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claim 7 recites “sending” a notification to schedule the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, “updating” member data associated with the member based at least in part on the input comprising the date and time, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claims 8, 13 recite “determining” a first time associated with a previous appointment, “determining” a periodic interval, “determining” a second time based at least in part of the first time and interval, “determining” that a current time is within a threshold time and further describing the determining where that the member is due for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visits is based at least in part on determining that the current time is within the threshold time, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claim 14 further specifies claim 13 by further describing how the threshold time is further based on the listed clinical guidelines, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claim 16 recites further “determining” medication data associated with the member, “determining” a potential modification to the medication and further describing how the clinical visits is done in part to the modification to the medication, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea. Claim 21 recites the provider being an insurance company where member data from the insurance companies are used as part of the determination steps the managing the clinical visits, therefore further describing the at least one abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claims as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 9:
A system associated with a service provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the service provider capable of providing first services to medical providers based at least in part on the service provider providing second services to members of the service provider, the first services including causing presentation, on a user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), of information associated with the members of care coordination tasks, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
determine, based at least in part on member data associated with a member of the members, that the member is due for at least one of a procedure or a clinical visit;
identify first data associated with medical locations and medical providers that are qualified to accommodate the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
identify second data associated with scheduling information related to the first data;
identify, based at least in part on the first data and the member data, third data associated with insurance coverage information;
determine, based at least in part the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers that is associated with the member;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, generate, by a first computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member,
based at least in part on the generating the scheduling task, send, by the first computing device via a network (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the scheduling task to an API configured to provide functionalities from the first computing device to a second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive, from the API, by the second computing device, the scheduling task;
based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to transition from an inactive execution state to an active execution state and automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
based at least in part on the causing the first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to run on the second computing device, causing, by the second computing device, the scheduling task to be presented on a first portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, cause first co-pay information to be presented on a second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the first co-pay information indicating a first out-of-pocket cost the member will pay for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit as performed by the available qualified medical provider;
receive, from the computing device via the user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member;
based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, cause a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
determine, based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation;
generate a clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation;
generate, based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation;
cause an indication of the clinical assessment to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the indication of the clinical assessment indicating that the clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit is generated; and
cause an indication of the second co-pay information to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein execution of the instructions further causes synchronization of scheduling state data between the first instance of the application running on the second computing device and a second instance of the application running on a member computing device, such that scheduling status changes initiated via either instance are automatically propagated to the other instance; and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to compute the threshold time as a scheduled execution event based at least in part on stored scheduling data associated with the member and/or a plurality of members and on a medical provider preference, the scheduled execution event defining a time at which execution of the first instance of the application is automatically triggered on the second computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a user interface, one or more processors, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, a portion and second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on a second computing device that is associated with the medical provider, sending the task from the first computing device to the second computing device via a network, based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, transition from an inactive execution state to an active execution state for the instance of the application, use of an API, use of the first and second computing devices the user interface associated with a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the computing device and based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, cause a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit, presenting indications in the user interface of the computing device, and use of the processors to perform steps, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s Specification at [0051] describes the interfaces generated with examples shown in Figures 2A-7 with no technological improvement to the interfaces and the interface technology is used in a generic manner to carry out the noted abstract idea. [0030, 0117] additionally recites both the first and second computing devices in a generic manner with no indication to an improvement to the computer technology. Claim 9 recites the use of two computing devices where the first performs the actions of the claim and the second involves the first instance of an application, however both computing devices are recited at a general level and still recite mere computer implementation. [0032, 0129] describes the use of the network to transmit the task between the first and second devices in a generic manner. [0031] recites the use of a generic API to provide communication between the applications of the devices. [0031, 0102] further describes the instances of the applications and how it is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computer at a threshold of time before the visit; automatically running the application for the scheduling task at a threshold of time does not improve the functionality of the computing device technologies, as the use of general computing components to automate the task is inherent. [0137] recites opening an instance of the application on a device, for example (interpreted as the transition of the inactive and active states of the instances of the first applications on the second computing device using the service provider), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to user interface technologies or opening applications. [0058, 0098] additionally recites the user interface of the second computing device and is described as merely displaying the scheduling task and other information that is generated by the system such as the indications of the clinical assessment and co-pay information; this further describes the computing device and the use of interface technologies in a generic manner. [0099] recites the use of the second portion of the user interface to display the co-pay information. [0065, 0094, 0105] recites further the window in the user interface with fields to input data related to the clinical assessment, however does not recite the use of a technological improvement related to interface technology and therefore further recites mere computer implementation. [0129] recites a connection of devices (interpreted as the automated propagation of the scheduling status to the other device and the synchronization of the state data between the applications of the computing devices), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to synchronizing data between devices. [0042-0045] recites the connection of devices and changing of information to each provider devices (interpreted as the automatic triggering of the scheduled execution defining at a time event on the other device), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to the connection of devices for the execution of the instances of the applications at the same time for the events. [0117] recites use of the generic processors in a generic manner to implement the instructions. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 15 recites similar additional elements as claim 9 and are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 1:
A method performed at least partially by a first computing device associated with a service provider to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cause presentation, on a user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), of information associated with a member, the method comprising:
storing, in a location that is accessible to the first computing device, member data associated with a member of the service provider (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
determining, by the first computing device and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) based at least in part on the member data, that the member is due for at least one of a procedure or a clinical visit;
identifying first data associated with medical locations and medical providers that are qualified to accommodate the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
identifying second data associated with scheduling information related to the first data;
identifying, based at least on the first data and the member data, third data associated with insurance coverage information;
determining, based at least in part on the first data, the second data, and the third data, an available qualified medical provider of the medical providers capable of performing the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit;
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, generate, by a first computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a scheduling task indicating that the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit is to be scheduled for the member,
based at least in part on the generating the scheduling task, send, by the first computing device via a network (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the scheduling task to an API configured to provide functionalities from the first computing device to a second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive, from the API, by the second computing device, the scheduling task;
based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
based at least in part on the causing the first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to run on the second computing device, causing, by the second computing device, the scheduling task to be presented on a first portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
based at least in part on determining the available qualified medical provider, causing, by the first computing device via a network (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), first co-pay information to be presented on a second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider, the user interface associated with the first instance of the application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the first co-pay information indicating a first out-of-pocket cost the member will pay for the at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit as performed by the available qualified medical provider;
receiving, by the first computing device and via the user interface displayed on the second computing device associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a request to generate a clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit between the available qualified medical provider and the member;
based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, causing, by the first computing device, a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the second computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
determining, by the first computing device and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) based at least in part on the member data, at least one of a potential diagnosis, a medication, a gap in care, or a clinical recommendation;
generating, by the first computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the clinical assessment comprising the at least one of the potential diagnosis, the medication, the gap in care, or the clinical recommendation;
generating, by the first computing device and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) based at least in part on the third data and the clinical assessment, second co-pay information indicating a second out-of-pocket cost the member would pay for the at least one of the medication or the clinical recommendation;
causing, by the first computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), an indication of the clinical assessment to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the indication of the clinical assessment indicating that the clinical assessment associated with the clinical visit is generated; and
causing, by the first computing device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), an indication of the second co-pay information to be presented on the user interface that is being displayed on the second computing device that is associated with the available qualified medical provider (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein responsive to scheduling the clinical visit, the service provider updates a second instance of the application on a second computing device with appointment information (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and causes a first indication of the scheduled appointment to be presented via the first instance on the provider device (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a first computing device associated with a service provider to cause presentation, on a user interface, of information associated with a member, use of the first computing device, and use of the first computing device with a network, based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, use of an API, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, with a scheduling task presented on a portion of the user interface that is being displayed on a second computing device that is associated with the medical provider, the user interface associated with a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device and based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, causing, by the first computing device, a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the second computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit, the provider updating a second instance of the application on a second computing device with appointment information, and the use of the first instance on the provider device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s Specification at [0051] describes the interfaces generated with examples shown in Figures 2A-7 with no technological improvement to the interfaces and the interface technology is used in a generic manner to carry out the noted abstract idea. [0030] and [0115-0117] additionally recites the first and second computing devices in a generic manner with no indication to an improvement to the computer technology. [0129] additionally recites the use of a network. [0032, 0129] describes the use of the network to transmit the task between the first and second devices in a generic manner. [0031] recites the use of a generic API to provide communication between the applications of the devices. [0031, 0102] further describes the instances of the applications and how it is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computer at a threshold of time before the visit; automatically running the application for the scheduling task at a threshold of time does not improve the functionality of the computing device technologies, as the use of general computing components to automate the task is inherent. [0099] recites the use of the second portion of the user interface to display the co-pay information. [0058, 0098] additionally recites the user interface of the computing device and is described as merely displaying the scheduling task and other information that is generated by the system such as the indications of the clinical assessment and co-pay information; this further describes the computing device and the use of interface technologies in a generic manner. [0065, 0094, 0105] recites further the window in the user interface with fields to input data related to the clinical assessment, however does not recite the use of a technological improvement related to interface technology and therefore further recites mere computer implementation. [0115-0117] recites the generic computing devices that can be interpreted as the second computing device which are recited as generic computing technology. [0043] recites the use the updating of the application with information, however there is no indication of a technology improvement beyond generic use of a UI on a device for carrying out part of the abstract idea. [0031] recites further the first instance without demonstrating an improvement to technology. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of storing, in a location that is accessible to the first computing device, member data associated with a member of the service provider this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Use of the stored member data for the further abstract limitations recites insignificant pre-solution activity. [0121] additionally recites the use of storing member data in a location accessible from the first computing device in a generic manner (gathering data).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to present a clinical assessment, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 2 recites the mere data gathering steps of receiving via the first instance of the application, an input associated with the scheduling task. Claims 3, 11, 17 recite insignificant post solution activity of causing the medication renewal task to be presented via the first instance of the application on the computing device associated with the medical provider. Claims 4 and 12 recite the mere data gathering step of receiving an input corresponding to the medication renewal task. Claims 6 and 18 recites the mere data gathering step of receiving via the first instance of the app a request for a financial report start/end data and the insignificant post solution activity of presenting the one or more payments via the first instance. Claim 7 recites the mere data gathering steps of receiving via the first instance of the app an indication of intent and receiving from the member computing device an input comprising and date and time for an appointment; claim further cites insignificant post solution activity of causing a notification on the first instance of the app on the device the notification that the appointment is scheduled. Claim 10 recites presenting the scheduling task via a pop-up notification, thus further reciting the abstract idea being implemented on generic computer/computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 9:
Regarding the additional limitation of a user interface, one or more processors, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, a portion and second portion of the user interface that is being displayed on a second computing device that is associated with the medical provider, sending the task from the first computing device to the second computing device via a network, based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, transition from an inactive execution state to an active execution state for the instance of the application, use of an API, use of the first and second computing devices the user interface associated with a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the computing device and based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, cause a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit, presenting indications in the user interface of the computing device, and use of the processors to perform steps, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). Applicant’s Specification at [0051] describes the interfaces generated with examples shown in Figures 2A-7 with no technological improvement to the interfaces and the interface technology is used in a generic manner to carry out the noted abstract idea. [0030, 0117] additionally recites both the first and second computing devices in a generic manner with no indication to an improvement to the computer technology. Claim 9 recites the use of two computing devices where the first performs the actions of the claim and the second involves the first instance of an application, however both computing devices are recited at a general level and still recite mere computer implementation. [0032, 0129] describes the use of the network to transmit the task between the first and second devices in a generic manner. [0031] recites the use of a generic API to provide communication between the applications of the devices. [0031, 0102] further describes the instances of the applications and how it is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computer at a threshold of time before the visit; automatically running the application for the scheduling task at a threshold of time does not improve the functionality of the computing device technologies, as the use of general computing components to automate the task is inherent. [0137] recites opening an instance of the application on a device, for example (interpreted as the transition of the inactive and active states of the instances of the first applications on the second computing device using the service provider), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to user interface technologies or opening applications. [0058, 0098] additionally recites the user interface of the second computing device and is described as merely displaying the scheduling task and other information that is generated by the system such as the indications of the clinical assessment and co-pay information; this further describes the computing device and the use of interface technologies in a generic manner. [0099] recites the use of the second portion of the user interface to display the co-pay information. [0065, 0094, 0105] recites further the window in the user interface with fields to input data related to the clinical assessment, however does not recite the use of a technological improvement related to interface technology and therefore further recites mere computer implementation. [0129] recites a connection of devices (interpreted as the automated propagation of the scheduling status to the other device and the synchronization of the state data between the applications of the computing devices), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to synchronizing data between devices. [0042-0045] recites the connection of devices and changing of information to each provider devices (interpreted as the automatic triggering of the scheduled execution defining at a time event on the other device), however there is no indication of a technology improvement related to the connection of devices for the execution of the instances of the applications at the same time for the events. [0117] recites use of the generic processors in a generic manner to implement the instructions. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the communication between devices to transmit information back and forth to display the instances of the applications at the same time via a communication network recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim 15 recites similar additional elements as claim 9 and are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding the additional limitation of a first computing device associated with a service provider to cause presentation, on a user interface, of information associated with a member, use of the first computing device, and use of the first computing device with a network, based at least in part on the receiving the scheduling task, use of an API, cause, by the second computing device, a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computing device at least a threshold period of time before at least one of the procedure or the clinical visit, with a scheduling task presented on a portion of the user interface that is being displayed on a second computing device that is associated with the medical provider, the user interface associated with a first instance of an application that is managed by the service provider and that is running on the second computing device and based at least in part on receiving the request to generate the clinical assessment, causing, by the first computing device, a window to surface on the user interface displayed on the second computing device, the window including one or more fields for inputting data associated with the clinical visit, the provider updating a second instance of the application on a second computing device with appointment information, and the use of the first instance on the provider device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). Applicant’s Specification at [0051] describes the interfaces generated with examples shown in Figures 2A-7 with no technological improvement to the interfaces and the interface technology is used in a generic manner to carry out the noted abstract idea. [0030] and [0115-0117] additionally recites the first and second computing devices in a generic manner with no indication to an improvement to the computer technology. [0129] additionally recites the use of a network. [0032, 0129] describes the use of the network to transmit the task between the first and second devices in a generic manner. [0031] recites the use of a generic API to provide communication between the applications of the devices. [0031, 0102] further describes the instances of the applications and how it is managed by the service provider to automatically run on the second computer at a threshold of time before the visit; automatically running the application for the scheduling task at a threshold of time does not improve the functionality of the computing device technologies, as the use of general computing components to automate the task is inherent. [0099] recites the use of the second portion of the user interface to display the co-pay information. [0058, 0098] additionally recites the user interface of the computing device and is described as merely displaying the scheduling task and other information that is generated by the system such as the indications of the clinical assessment and co-pay information; this further describes the computing device and the use of interface technologies in a generic manner. [0065, 0094, 0105] recites further the window in the user interface with fields to input data related to the clinical assessment, however does not recite the use of a technological improvement related to interface technology and therefore further recites mere computer implementation. [0115-0117] recites the generic computing devices that can be interpreted as the second computing device which are recited as generic computing technology. [0043] recites the use the updating of the application with information, however there is no indication of a technology improvement beyond generic use of a UI on a device for carrying out part of the abstract idea. [0031] recites further the first instance without demonstrating an improvement to technology. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the communication between devices to transmit information back and forth over a network recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Regarding the additional limitation of storing, in a location that is accessible to the first computing device, member data associated with a member of the service provider this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). Use of the stored member data for the further abstract limitations recites insignificant pre-solution activity. [0121] additionally recites the use of storing member data in a location accessible from the first computing device in a generic manner (gathering data). Merely retrieving and using stored data to perform aspects of the abstract idea recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686