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
Examiner Interview
Applicant's statement filed 05/12/2026 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 05/12/2026 that another interview held on 04/29/2026 and that Examiner indicated the proposed amendments appeared to overcome at least a portion of the claim rejections based on the written description and suggested further proposed amendments to advance prosecution.
In response to these statements, the Examiner directs Applicant to the Interview Summary dated 05/04/2026 from the interview held on 04/29/2026, which clearly details that the proposed amendments were discussed and with regards to the 101 only and no agreements were reached. Examiner and Applicant could not come to an agreement that the proposed amendments overcame the amendments, thus meaning Examiner did not indicate they overcame a part of the rejections. See the interview summary for further clarification.
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 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 real-time GPS location data is monitored at the device-receiver level by the GPS enabled device, not by a person, The cluster genesis operation is performed automatically without human intervention; it operates multidimensional attribute vectors and computes distances. The cluster analytic operation is automatic and performed without human intervention. Levenshtein distance is a string edit metric not computable by humans on real population datasets at all. “Determining cohort timeslot content based on average appointment durations within the target data cluster, computing a geographic distance from real-time-monitored GPS coordinates, and obtaining a calculated estimated travel time corresponding to that geographic distance are computational operations, not rules a person follows.” See Remarks pg. 15.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as discussed in the rejection, the claim consists of two abstract ideas – organizing human activity, and mathematical concepts. As pointed out in Applicant’s remarks, and identified in the rejection below, the limitations directed to computational operations are classified under the mathematical concepts abstract idea. See the rejection below for further clarification.
The amended claims do not recite concepts that fall within mathematical concepts. The claims do not recite any mathematical formula, mathematical equation, or mathematical calculation. The recitation of the cluster genesis that involves mathematical computation is not the same as a mathematical relationship. The claims do not recite a distance formula or equation but rather a distance computation. There is not recited averaging formula or any mathematical equation for averaging appointment durations. The geographic distance and calculated estimated travel time is not math but as recited in the spec. at [0019] is a computation.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the recited amendments are directed to mathematical concepts by reciting mathematical computational limitations as pointed out by the Applicant. A computation is merely the action of a mathematical calculation being performed. Thus, the limitations are still mathematical calculations being performed and fall under the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
The claims recite additional elements that in combination with other elements in the claim provide for an improvement in technology.
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 derived distance and estimated travel time improves scheduling options.
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 amended claims recite determining scheduling pipeline by organizing patient information associated with data clusters operations and vector quantization. Such content is not abstract and improves the functioning of a computer.
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. The limitations directed to the cluster genesis and vector quantization are part of the abstract idea. 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 with the cluster analytic operation using levenshtein distance associated with patient records and the target data clusters. The limitations solve the problem by providing a technological solution and do not recite an abstract idea.
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 averaging appointment durations is an improvement and not an abstract idea.
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 calculated estimated travel time corresponding to the geographic distance is an improvement and not an abstract idea.
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 cluster genesis operation and cluster analytic operation are performed automatically and without human intervention. This is an improvement and not an abstract idea.
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 closed loop of the GPS location data to historical population store is an improvement. The claims recite electronic encoded data being written to the memory at the records computer system with the data indicating the identifier and the updating the historical population data with the GPS location data. This is an improvement to the system’s data architecture not to the abstract notion of record keeping information.
In response to Applicant’s argument, 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 any recited improvement is to the abstract idea.
The claims recite an inventive concept by providing significantly more than the judicial exceptions by virtue of the combined limitations recited in the claim are not well understood, routine, or conventional in computerized scheduling.
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.
Rejection Under 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the rejection is traversed in view of the amended claims.
In Response to Applicant’s argument, in light of the amendment the rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 112(f)
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the claims should be interpreted to cover the structure described in the specification.
In Response to Applicant’s argument, as discussed in the interpretation below, for examination purposes the TDM is construed to be a processor carrying out instructions. This structural limitation was accounted for in the 101 analysis. See the rejection below where the TDM was accounted for. For clarification, Examiner has clarified that the TDM was examined in view of the claim interpretation. See the rejection below.
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 § 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, 4-7, 11-31 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, 11-14, 26-31 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 at least one processor 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 being monitored in real-time by 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, both a vector quantization of a multi- dimensional attribute vector, that includes patient demographic data associated with the first patient record, the complaint, and one or more historical appointment durations, 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 of the level of similarity and based on identifying a Levenshtein distance between an attribute associated with the first patient record and an attribute associated with the target data cluster, the target data cluster within the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts;
determining cohort timeslot content, wherein determining the cohort timeslot content comprises analyzing via the one or more hardware processors timeslot metrics within the target data cluster, the timeslot metrics indicating one or more average appointment durations;
based on the GPS location data being monitored in real-time by the GPS-enable device, determining a geographic distance 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) a calculated estimated travel time corresponding to the geographic distance:
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 {processor and instructions – see 112f}, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass following rules or instructions to automate the of organization of 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 {processor and instructions – see 112f}, 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, 11-14, and 16-31 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 at least one processor 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 being monitored in real-time by 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)), both a vector quantization of a multi- dimensional attribute vector, that includes patient demographic data associated with the first patient record, the complaint, and one or more historical appointment durations, 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 of the level of similarity and based on identifying a Levenshtein distance between an attribute associated with the first patient record and an attribute associated with the target data cluster, the target data cluster within the one or more data clusters of reference cohorts;
determining cohort timeslot content, wherein determining the cohort timeslot content comprises analyzing 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)) timeslot metrics within the target data cluster, the timeslot metrics indicating one or more average appointment durations;
based on the GPS location data being monitored in real-time by the GPS-enable device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) determining a geographic distance 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) a calculated estimated travel time corresponding to the geographic distance;
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 {processor and instructions – see 112f}, 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, 11-14, and 16-31 recite additional limitations that further the abstract idea; claims 4, 12, 20, 24-25, 28, 30 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 4-6, 11-14, and 16-31 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 {processor and instructions – see 112f}, 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, 4-7, 11-31 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights