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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner Interview
Applicant's statement filed 12/23/2025 are in regards to an interview held back on 12/17/2024. Applicant states that an informal understanding was reached for overcoming the prior art and that the claims fell beyond the abstract idea groupings of organizing human activity and mental processes.
In response to these statements, Applicant has misconstrued the Interview. As noted in the interview summary dated 12/27/2024, there were no agreements reached. Additionally, Examiner made note that the proposed amendments do not appear to overcome the rejections and further search and consideration was required. See the interview summary for further clarification. Additionally, Examiner wishes to point out that this interview took place prior to this round of prosecution. Furthermore, this remark is moot since the subject matter is free of prior art. See below.
Applicant stated again on 12/23/2025 that another interview held on 06/12/2025 came to an informal understanding with the proposed amendments overcoming the art-based rejection and understood the proposed amendments (a) recite a technical solution to a technical problem and (b) reflect an improvement to a technical field with the proviso that the improvement not be “to the abstract idea itself”.
In response to these statements, the Examiner directs Applicant to the Interview Summary dated 06/16/2025 which clearly details that the proposed amendments were discussed and with regards to the 103, further search and consideration was required. Thus no agreements were reached. With regards to the 101, Examiner made clear to explain the classification of the abstract idea and then discussed how the proposed amendments do not overcome the rejection. Thus no agreements were reached.
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that:
No judicial exception has been identified and no judicial exception exists since there is not instances of instructing a human or communicating to a human.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the abstract idea is identified in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis, where the underlined limitations are construed as the abstract idea. Additionally, the computerized method to obtain that timeslot for a patient is construed as falling under organizing human activity by a computerized system interacting with a patient in order to schedule their timeslot (e.g., managing personal behavior or interactions). Additionally, “[i]t is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). See the updated rejection for further clarification.
The combination of recited elements in the amended claim does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it.
In response to Applicant’s argument, while preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042,1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370,1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1,10-11 n.14 (1981). See MPEP 2106.04 (I).
The sub-grouping of “managing personal behavior pertains to a human following rules or instructions not a hardware processor as in claim 1. Amended claim 1 is directed to a system that generates and processes GPS location data with data clusters. The MPEP requires at least one human for following rules and instructions. None of this “organizing human activity” language applies to claim 1. The system does not manage interactions between people and does not fall within “following rules or instructions”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims are directed at scheduling timeslots for a patient based on their location. Therefore, the computerized method is construed as falling under organizing human activity by a computerized system interacting with a patient in order to schedule their appointment timeslot based on their location information (e.g., managing personal behavior or interactions). Additionally, “[i]t is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claim is understood to fall under “following rules or instructions” since the claim recites limitations that amount to following rules or instructions in order to process patient location and travel data to determine a patient appropriate timeslot. Additionally, the hardware at issue in Applicant’s argument is construed as additional elements and merely applying the abstract idea in a computer environment. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
The two publications used in the Office Action have been found compliant with Section 101 and allowed. The claims of the current application should by extension be determined as patent eligible for the same reasons.
In response to Applicant’s statement, the use of the references was only for Berkheimer evidence in the analysis of well understood, routine, and conventional for the additional elements listed in that part of the analysis. The reference are only evidence for those limitations, not the entire claims, therefore, are not a basis for eligibility. See the rejection below for further clarification.
The point of novelty over the prior art is part of the technical problem/technical solution and are therefore allowable.
In response to Applicant’s argument, “[a]lthough the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).” See MPEP 2106.05(I). Therefore, the 102/103 analysis is a separate analysis from the 101 analysis. See the updated rejection below.
The GPS related content is significant and ubiquitous in the claim rather than being mere extra-solution activity and should be considered in the analysis rather than dismissed.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the GPS limitations, for example, the GPS-enabled device is considered an additional element and one that is well known and conventional since it is recited at a high level of generality and for its intended purpose (i.e., gathering location data). See the updated rejection below for further clarification where the entire claim and all limitations are considered as evidenced by the recitation of the entirety of the exemplary claim.
The claims recite additional elements that in combination with other elements in the claim provide for an improvement in technology. Applicant’s claims include improvements to a computerized scheduling systems, which are necessarily rooted in computer technology by virtue of processing GPS location data with data clusters to provide scheduling options and durations.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements recited amount to no more than merely applying the abstract idea in the computer environment, or insignificant extrasolution activity. The recitation of the computer components (e.g., the processor, GPS device, memory, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality and for their intended purpose (i.e., processing data, gathering location data, etc.). The additional element of electronically writing encoded data to memory amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection below, the other limitations that are processing this data are considered part of the abstract idea (unless stated otherwise) and not an additional element. See the rejection below. Therefore, there is no improvement to the technology.
The claims recite processing of GPS location data with encoded historical time duration data creates a technological improvement for scheduling options and durations.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements recited amount to no more than merely applying the abstract idea in the computer environment, or insignificant extrasolution activity. The recitation of the computer components (e.g., the processor, GPS device, memory, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality and merely using the computer tools to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection below, the other limitations that are processing this data are considered part of the abstract idea (unless stated otherwise) and not an additional element. See the rejection below. Therefore, there is no improvement to the technology.
The claim is not abstract since it recites a claimed graphical user interface (GUI) that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying in a particular manner.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the GUI amounts to an additional element and invokes the use of computer. See the updated rejection below.
The amended claims recite determining timeslot information associated with data clusters and geographic data and electronically writing via hardware processors electronic encoded data to an electronic memory at a medical records computer system, where the electronic encoded data indicates timeslot information. Such content is not abstract and integrates the abstract idea not a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements recited amount to no more than merely applying the abstract idea in the computer environment, or insignificant extrasolution activity. The recitation of the computer components (e.g., the processor, GPS device, memory, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality and merely using the computer tools to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element of electronically writing encoded data to memory amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, there is no practical application. See the updated rejection below for further clarification.
The amended claims are directed to solving a technological problem in the technical filed of computerized scheduling system by virtue of processing GPS location data with data clusters. The limitations interact together to solve the problem by providing a technological solution. Additionally, the solution is rooted in a technology field to address the problem and amounts to significantly more than the excluded category and is patent eligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitations at issue with the argument are part of the abstract idea and thus not additional elements. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
The claims recite an inventive concept by providing significantly more than the judicial exceptions by virtue of the improved technology of processing GPS location data with data clusters and performed via hardware like the GPS-enabled device and the TDM recited in the amended claims.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, as discussed with the practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the abstract idea in the computer environment. See the updated rejection below for further clarification.
The Office has filed to satisfy the burden required under the Berkheimer memo to provide evidence that all of the elements are well-known.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Berkheimer decision does not change the basic subject matter eligibility framework as set forth in MPEP 2106, but provides clarification regarding additional limitations that are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, or conventional is but one consideration when determining whether the limitation recites significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106 (a)-(h). The Specification may indicate when additional elements are well known or conventional when they are described as performing basic computer functions or performing functions known in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Here caselaw and Applicant’s specification described the additional elements as performing functions that were basic computer functions. As discussed in the rejection below, Applicant’s specification and similarly with the other recited publications, there is sufficient detail described about the listed additional elements (i.e., the device enabled with GPS, processor, memory, medical record computer systems, TDM) to would satisfy the requirements of 112(a) and thus amounts to being described in such a manner that it is well understood. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Regarding Claim 1 – The claim recites identifying, automatically by the TDM in response to the determining, the target data cluster... See MPEP 2181. The claim limitation uses the term TDM. The “TDM” is modified by functional language “determining the target data cluster….” The TDM is not modified by sufficient structure, material or act for performing the claim. Therefore 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0006], [0026] describes a scheduling module that determines timeslots and patients with similar complaints. The specification at [0055] describes the modules as being program modules executed by a computing device using a processor and computer instructions stored in the data store. For examination purposes the TDM is construed to be programming carried out by processors and computer instructions.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite: “receiving, via a portion of the one or more hardware processors” in the first limitation of the claims. The specification does not appear to provide clarification on what Applicant means by reciting “via a portion” of the processors. Specifically, the specification at [0039] appears to be the closest support for the “portion” recitation, but even that section mentions “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied can be used to perform and/or implement the methods.” It does not provide clarification that the portions is related to the processors. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted to be receiving via one or more hardware processors. The dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the issues of their corresponding independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1, 4-6, 21-25 are drawn to a computerized method for leveraging near real-time location information and historical appointment data of patient cohorts to calculate future appointment start times and predicted durations, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 7-14, 26-28 are drawn to one or more non-transitory media having instructions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Claims 15-20 are drawn to a system for leveraging near real-time location information and historical appointment data of patient cohorts to calculate future appointment start times and predicted durations, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. system).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claims 7, 15) recites:
A computerized method performed by one or more hardware processors, the computerized method comprising:
receiving, via a portion of the one or more hardware processors associated with an electronic memory at a medical records computer system that includes a timeslot-determination module (TDM), electronic encoded information specifying:
(a) an identifier associated with a first patient record;
(b) real-time Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) location data corresponding to a GPS-enabled device associated with the first patient record; and
(c) a complaint associated with the first patient record;
performing cluster genesis, wherein performing the cluster genesis comprises (a) accessing by the one or more hardware processors the TDM and (b) in response to the accessing automatically performing, at the TDM and without human intervention:
a computerized cluster genesis operation that (i) inputs into the TDM historical- population data indicating instances of the GPS location data and of the first patient record, (ii) utilizes, by the TDM, a vector quantization and a distance between vectors, and (iii) outputs from the TDM one or more data clusters of reference cohorts; and
a computerized cluster analytic operation that (i) is performed by the TDM based on the computerized cluster genesis operation and further based on determining a level of similarity between a first attribute associated with a target data cluster and a second attribute associated with the first patient record and (ii) comprises identifying, automatically by the TDM in response to the determining, the target data cluster within the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts;
determining cohort timeslot content, wherein the cohort timeslot content is determined at least in part by analyzing timeslot metrics within the target data cluster;
determining a distance or travel time, wherein the distance or travel time is determined based on a relationship between a first geographic location indicated by the GPS location data and a second geographic location corresponding to a target destination;
selecting one or more future timeslots, wherein the one or more future timeslots are determined and selected based on: (i) the cohort timeslot content in tandem with (ii) the distance or travel time:
communicating the one or more future timeslots to the GPS-enabled device via the one or more hardware processors associated with the medical records computer system;
receiving an electronic notification from the GPS-enabled device, wherein the electronic notification includes timeslot information indicating at least one of the one or more future timeslots; and
electronically writing, via the one or more hardware processors associated with the medical records computing system, electronic encoded data to the electronic memory at the medical records computer system, wherein the electronic encoded data: (a) indicates the identifier, (b) updates the historical-population data with the GPS location data, and (c) is associated with a duration, of the timeslot information, that is identified based on comparing at least two of a set of candidate timeslot durations and based on the timeslot metrics of the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the device enabled with GPS, processor, memory, medical record computer systems, TDM, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass an automation of organizing patient location information in order to determine their distances and travel time for selecting the appropriate future timeslot. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Additionally, the underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover mathematical relationships but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the device enabled with GPS, processor, memory, medical record computer systems, TDM, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass mathematical relationships using vector quantization techniques, distance measurements, and cluster analytics in order to create data clusters for reference cohorts and identify a target data cluster within the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 4-6, 8-14, and 16-28 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
Claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claims 7, 15) recites:
A computerized method performed by one or more hardware processors, the computerized method comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, via a portion of the one or more hardware processors associated with an electronic memory at a medical records computer system that includes a timeslot-determination module (TDM), electronic encoded information specifying: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
(a) an identifier associated with a first patient record;
(b) real-time Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) location data corresponding to a GPS-enabled device associated with the first patient record; and (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
(c) a complaint associated with the first patient record;
performing cluster genesis, wherein performing the cluster genesis comprises (a) accessing by the one or more hardware processors the TDM and (b) in response to the accessing automatically performing, at the TDM and without human intervention: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
a computerized cluster genesis operation that (i) inputs into the TDM (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) historical- population data indicating instances of the GPS location data and of the first patient record, (ii) utilizes, by the TDM (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a vector quantization and a distance between vectors, and (iii) outputs from the TDM (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) one or more data clusters of reference cohorts; and
a computerized cluster analytic operation that (i) is performed by the TDM (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) based on the computerized cluster genesis operation and further based on determining a level of similarity between a first attribute associated with a target data cluster and a second attribute associated with the first patient record and (ii) comprises identifying, automatically by the TDM (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) in response to the determining, the target data cluster within the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts;
determining cohort timeslot content, wherein the cohort timeslot content is determined at least in part by analyzing timeslot metrics within the target data cluster;
determining a distance or travel time, wherein the distance or travel time is determined based on a relationship between a first geographic location indicated by the GPS location data and a second geographic location corresponding to a target destination;
selecting one or more future timeslots, wherein the one or more future timeslots are determined and selected based on: (i) the cohort timeslot content in tandem with (ii) the distance or travel time:
communicating the one or more future timeslots to the GPS-enabled device via the one or more hardware processors (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) associated with the medical records computer system;
receiving an electronic (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) notification from the GPS-enabled device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) wherein the electronic(merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) notification includes timeslot information indicating at least one of the one or more future timeslots; and
electronically writing, via the one or more hardware processors associated with the medical records computing system, electronic encoded data to the electronic memory at the medical records computer system, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (merely insignificant extrasolution activity steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) wherein the electronic encoded data: (a) indicates the identifier, (b) updates the historical-population data with the GPS location data, and (c) is associated with a duration, of the timeslot information, that is identified based on comparing at least two of a set of candidate timeslot durations and based on the timeslot metrics of the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, bolded above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the device enabled with GPS, processor, memory, medical record computer systems, time-slot determination module, TDM, which amount to merely invoking the use of generic computing elements as tools to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see Paragraph [0005], [0016], [0026], [0055], of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of electronically writing electronic encoded data to the electronic memory at the medical records computer system amount to insignificant extrasolution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 4-6, 8-14, and 16-28 recite additional limitations that further the abstract idea; claims 4, 12, 20, 24-25 and 28 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 4-6, 8-14, and 16-28 recite additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the recitation of the device enabled with GPS, processor, memory, medical record computer systems, TDM, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system consistent with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. Paragraph [0005], [0016], [0026], [0055]; see also Sanderford (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0124526 A1) in view of Schuurbiers (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0102240 A1)); using a processor, computer instructions, and memory, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application. The following represent examples that courts have identified as insignificant extrasolution activities (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)): electronically writing electronic encoded data to the electronic memory at the medical records computer system, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 4-28 are free of prior art over Sanderford (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0124526 A1) in view of Schuurbiers (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0102240 A1). The prior art references, or reasonable combination thereof, could not be found to disclose, or suggest all of the limitations found in the independent claims. The closest prior art is Sanderford (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0124526 A1), which teaches a system and method for scheduling patient appointments with identifying timestamp and spatial location information related to the patient and/or providers in proximity of the appointment locations. Schuurbiers (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0102240 A1) teaches a navigation system and method for providing departure times for determining expected travel time to a destination. The references taken solely, or in combination, fail to provide the required limitations, and modification of any complementary combination of the references of record would be impermissible hindsight and not provide any advantages over their present application. The dependent claims are also free of prior art due to their corresponding dependency of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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 on (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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686