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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8-14, and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 2-7 and 15-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 8-14, and 21 have been rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 discloses, “A point of care tool configured to receive case data from a healthcare professional.” Para 7 of the Applicant’s specification discloses, “a point of care tool to permit a practitioner to construct at least one case.” Thus, indicating that the point of care tool is an interface for the practitioner, therefore, the examiner is interpreting the point of care tool as a graphical user interface.
Claim 1 further discloses, “the graphical user interface configured to use distinctive coding to indicate an attribute of the procedure.” There is no description of “distinctive coding” in the specification, however, the Applicant points to Para 64 which discloses, “the calendar may be color-coded.” Therefore, the limitation is broadly claimed and the Examiner is interpreting “distinctive coding” as any indication that visually differentiates each scheduled procedure on a graphical user interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 8-14, and 21 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.
Claim 1 discloses “analyze the treatment factors using a trained scheduling model; assign a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors;”
There is no mention of “assigning medical procedure time slots based on the analyzed treatment factors” nor of any paragraph relating to time slots or what they may be based on. The Applicant points to fig 7., para 63 and original claims 1, 8, and 9. The original claim 1, 8 and 9 do not disclose any time slots, nor do they disclose an AI engine or a scheduling model nor how they are trained. Para 63 does not disclose anything related to assigning a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors. While “Fig. 7 illustrates a screenshot of the calendar interface, illustrating a daily calendar including scheduled procedures…” and it does display the timing of the already scheduled procedures, it does not disclose or display assigning a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors. Examiner notes that the analyzed treatment factors is required by the claim language to include the particular type of the particular medical procedure, a priority level, healthcare practitioner availability, and room availability. There is no disclosure of assigning a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors listed above in the specification, the originally filed claims, or the drawings.
Claims 8-14, and 21 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Thus, Claims 1, 8-14, and 21 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.
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, 8-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8-14, and 21 are directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a medical procedure scheduling system for scheduling medical procedures, comprising: at least one hardware processor; and memory storing computer instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor, the computer instructions including a point of care tool configured to receive case data from a healthcare professional, the case data including at least one of a patient diagnosis or treatment plan, the case data indicating a particular medical procedure of a particular type and a scheduler configured to schedule the particular medical procedure based on treatment factors, the treatment factors including the particular type of the particular medical procedure, a priority level, healthcare practitioner availability, and room availability, wherein the scheduler comprises an artificial intelligence engine and is configured to analyze the treatment factors using a trained scheduling model; assign a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors and update one or more scheduling databases of the medical procedure; a graphical user interface configured to illustrate scheduled procedures for at least a healthcare facility, the graphical user interface configured to use distinctive coding to indicate an attribute of the procedure; and a social media interface configured to solicit a testimonial from the patient, automatically format the testimonial for presentation on a social media profile, and transmit the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to scheduling a medical procedure based on case data and treatment factors. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
At least one hardware processor
Memory storing computer instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor
A point of care tool
A scheduler wherein the scheduler comprises an artificial intelligence engine
Scheduling databases
Graphical user interface
A social media interface
Transmit the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile
In particular, the at least one hardware processor, memory storing computer instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor, point of care tool, scheduler wherein the scheduler comprises an artificial intelligence engine, scheduling databases, graphical user interface, and the social media interface (of claim 1) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 36- 42 discloses the following: The computing system 100 is comprised of a standalone computer or mobile computing device, a mainframe computer system, a workstation, a network computer, a desktop computer, a laptop, or the like (para 36). The specification further states “Processors 110 suitable for the execution of a computer program include both general and special purpose microprocessors and any one or more processors of any digital computing device… Generally, a computing device will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto-optical disks, or optical disks; however, a computing device need not have such devices” (para 37).
Additionally, “transmit[ting] the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile” amounts to insignificant extra-solution. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements as disclosed above of claims 1 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Further, “transmit[ting] the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile,” was considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in step 2B, this is also determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The buySAFE, Inc. v. Google and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Thus, these additional elements, even in combination, do not provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 8-14, and 21 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 9, 14, and 21 do further disclose the additional element(s) of an insurance verification module (claim 9), an insurance provider interface in communication with an insurance provider system (claim 14), and a risk analyzer and a notification generator (of claim 21).
In particular, insurance verification module, insurance provider interface, insurance provider system, risk analyzer, and notification generator are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the insurance verification module, insurance provider interface, insurance provider system, risk analyzer, and notification generator amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 8-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US PG Pub 2017/0061375 A1), Marshall (US PG Pub 2004/0249676 A1), Silver (US PG Pub 2018/0358123 A1), and MyMedLeads Reputation Builder.
Regarding Claim 1, Laster discloses:
A medical procedure scheduling system for scheduling medical procedures, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and memory storing computer instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor, the computer instructions including: (Paras 280-281 discloses the processes and logic flows described in this specification may be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output… The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data…)
a point of care tool configured to receive case data from a healthcare professional, the case data including at least one of a patient diagnosis or treatment plan, the case data indicating a particular medical procedure of a particular type; (Para 60 discloses referring to FIG. 1, a system 100 for predictive modeling of implant component needs includes a scheduler 110 that manages various aspects of planning for medical procedures. The schedular 110 may be implemented as one or more computers, e.g., as a server system, that executes software modules configured to perform the management functions. Paras 77-79 disclose at step 202, a user enters a patient’s medical data using the clinician app 130. For example, during a patient consultation, a nurse or physician may enter patient characteristics into the clinician app 130 using a tablet computer, laptop, computer, desktop computer, or other device… The patient medical data may also indicate comorbidities, for example, diseases or conditions in addition to the condition to be treated… at step 204, the user uses the clinician app 130 to enter information about a medical procedure to be performed for the patient. The information may indicate the type of procedure, the date of surgery, the surgeon or other members of the medical team, the location that the procedure is to be performed, and so on… At step 206, the user uses the clinician app 130 to request scheduling of the patient's procedure. The medical data for the patient, the procedure information, and the scheduling request are transferred to the scheduler 110 over the network 111. )
a scheduler configured to schedule the particular medical procedure based on treatment factors, the treatment factors including the particular type of the particular medical procedure, healthcare practitioner availability, and room availability, The medical data for the patient, the procedure information [particular type of the particular medical procedure], and the scheduling request are transferred to the scheduler 110 over the network 111. Paras 94-96 discloses at step 218, the scheduler 110 completes the scheduling of the procedure. The scheduler 110 may use information generated in step 216 to identify days, times, and locations that are suitable for carrying out the procedure. For example, the procedure can be scheduled for a time when an operating room is available [room availability], instruments predicted to be needed are available, and the physician and other staff are also available [healthcare practitioner availability]. The scheduler 110 may reserve a physical space, such as an operating room, within the medical facility for carrying out the procedure [schedule a procedure].
wherein the scheduler comprises an artificial intelligence engine and is configured to analyze the treatment factors using a trained scheduling model (Paras 68-69 disclose the predictive models 112 can continue to be trained and updated over time. As more information becomes available, the predictive models 112 can become more accurate. Additionally, the training process allows the predictive models 112 to be responsive to changes and trends... In some implementations, the predictive models may be trained using machine learning algorithms. Examples of types of machine learning models that may be used include maximum entropy classifiers, artificial neural networks, kernel machines, and support vector machines. Paras 94-96 discloses using this information, the predictive model 112 can determine, for example, likelihoods that instruments, operating space, staff, and other needs can be met at various times. For example, although an operating room may be available at a particular day and time, instruments needed for a particular procedure may not be available because the instruments are needed for another procedure scheduled for the same time. Similarly, even if the instruments are not scheduled to be used at the same time, the instruments may not be available because they are being sterilized after use in a prior procedure. By taking into account these factors, the predictive model may indicate probabilities that operating room space, instruments, and other needs will be available, so that a procedure can be appropriately scheduled.)
assign a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors (Paras 77-80 disclose at step 208, the scheduler 110 responds to the scheduling request by assigning a case identifier (“case ID”) for the patient's medical procedure. The case ID is associated with the patient medical data and procedure data to designate the information as corresponding to the particular procedure being scheduled. Para 84 discusses the information from the patient profile and surgeon profile (further indicating that scheduling is determined based on the type of procedure as the predictive model specifies which items are likely to be needed for the procedure to be scheduled). Para 95 discloses For example, the procedure [type of procedure as discloses by step 208 where the case ID is associated with the procedure data to designate the information as corresponding to the particular procedure being schedule] can be scheduled for a time [medical procedure time slot] when an operating room is available [room availability], instruments predicted to be needed are available, and the physician and other staff are also available [healthcare provider availability].)
While Laster discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Marshall discloses:
a scheduler configured to schedule the particular medical procedure based on treatment factors, the treatment factors including … a priority level (Paras 148-149 disclose the principles of the systems and methods can be broadly applied to healthcare (wherein the items are patients awaiting procedures). In contrast, the systems and methods described herein provide a management tool in which data relating to, for example, item readiness and availability, changes in priority [patient prioritization], and availability of resources [facility resource availability], for each item are organized into various interdependent fields, such that items can be actively (i.e., dynamically) managed and prioritized. Para 159 discloses users may then see at a glance which patients are scheduled for procedures on which days from a calendar. When the user selects a particular day, the user may see which patients are scheduled, the estimated time for the procedures both used and unused. The list of available patients for the day may be filtered and sorted on a variety of criteria. Para 162 discloses Managing patients can include activities such as ensuring a patient requires a procedure, determining relative priorities of patients, ensuring a patient's preparation for a procedure, determining a patient's availability to undergo a procedure, determining the patient's readiness to undergo a procedure, and matching required resources for the patient to undergo a procedure with resources available at the time of potential booking of a procedure. Para 171 discloses mechanisms for setting priorities may include calculating on the basis of the urgency score and its associated target time for the procedure for the particular patient the number of days to target, in real time, and presenting that information for all the patients of an individual care provider in rank order.)
a graphical user interface configured to illustrate scheduled procedures for at least one healthcare facility, the graphical user interface configured to use distinctive coding to indicate an attribute of the procedure; and (Fig. 21 displays a calendar with the displayed patient procedures that are scheduled wherein, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “distinctive coding to indicate an attribute of the procedure,” displaying the names of the patient scheduled for the procedure reads on the limitation. Paras 539-559 disclose 2.11 Booking Calendar (calendar.cfm) FIG. 21 Function: This screen displays a calendar oriented view of patients scheduled for surgery, as well as blocks of time available to the surgeon's office… The calendar contains the days of the month in question, as well as a list of patients scheduled for that day… Calendar Output: Programming logic obtains a list of days in the month, and outputs each day on the correct day of the week. Scheduled patients are output on the appropriate day.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster with the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall in order to provide an automated tool that provides for a healthcare provider to facilitate decision making while capturing aggregate data to enable reporting on a patient waiting continuum (Marshall para 10) and improve decision making on allocating resources, removing resources, and creating new resources (Marshall para 8).
While the combination of Laster and Marshall discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Silver discloses:
update one or more scheduling databases of the medical procedure; (Para 6 discloses according to one aspect of the present general inventive concept, the present invention provides a scheduling portal including a processor, a memory on which are stored machine readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to access medical provider data for a plurality of medical providers and store the medical provider data in a database, receive patient parameters from a patient mobile device and store the patient parameters in the database, determine if the patient parameters contain a scheduling request for at least one of the medical providers having the medical provider data stored in the database, schedule a requested appointment for the patient with the medical provider if the patient parameters contain a scheduling request, update a medical provider calendar in the database [update one or more scheduling databases of the medical procedure], and send the updated medical provider calendar to a medical provider mobile device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical
procedures as taught by Laster and the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall
with the interactive scheduling web portal as taught by Silver in order to store medical provider data in a database and, after a scheduling request, send a notification to the patient mobile device if the medical provider is not available or available (Silver para 8-9) and schedule a requested appointment (Silver para 6).
While the combination of Laster, Marshall, and Silver discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that the MyMedLeads reference discloses:
a social media interface configured to solicit a testimonial from the patient, automatically format the testimonial for presentation on a social media profile, and transmit the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile. (“Get More Online Reviews from Your Happy Patients!” section discloses MyMedLeads’ Patient Review Service makes getting more positive reviews a seamless process! All your staff has to do is check patients into your practice management software, and MyMedLeads will automatically request feedback from your patients [solicit a testimonial from the patient]. “Send Review Requests at the Right time” discloses MyMedLeads Patient Review Service allows you to customize when patients are asked to review your practice. For instance, immediately after their consult or after they’ve had a procedure. You can even customize per treatment based on the standard recovery time. “Market Your Positive Feedback” discloses MyMedLeads also helps you market your positive reviews across the web. The feedback you capture through Reputation Builder is fed directly to your own personal MyMedLeads review page [transmit the formatted testimonial to be association with the social media profile], which shows up in search results when potential patients search for your name. “Managing Your Online Reputation with MyMedLeads discloses MyMedLeads offers a Patient Review Service that sends an automated email after a patient’s appointment asking if they would recommend your practice. Patients that say Yes are redirected to a page that provides convenient links to your top online review sites, making it easy for your happy patients to write a public review. Individuals that say No are directed to a private form, where they can leave their comments. This feedback is captured internally and will be emailed directly to you. This provides you with valuable insight on ways that you can improve the patient experience, while allowing you to address the problem before the patient vents their frustrations online [automatically format the testimonial for presentation on a social media wherein the patients that say yes use the links to the top online review sites (and thus is automatically formatted for presentation) and the patients that say no are sent internally].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall, and the interactive scheduling web portal as taught by Silver with the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder in order to automatically request reviews from patients in order to build the reputation of a healthcare facility or provider.
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads discloses the following limitation that Laster further discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the medical procedure scheduling system manages scheduling for at least one medical facility. (Paras 94-95 disclose the scheduler 110 updates the records of the medical facility to show the date and time scheduled for the procedure, along with any other information about the procedure that may be needed. The scheduler 110 may reserve a physical space, such as an operating room, within the medical facility for carryout out the procedure [manages scheduling for at least one medical facility].)
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads discloses the following limitation that Marshall further discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the case data includes a patient diagnosis listing (Paras 209-225 and Fig.8 disclose a drop down box allowing the user to select from a list of diagnoses specific to the service of the active physician’s list. (Paras 415-421 and Fig. 18 disclose Function: The View Patient screen allows the user to view the particulars of a patient on the wait list. This is the first screen the user will see once a patient is added to the list. From here the user can access audits, preoperative requirements, the OR booking form, and unavailable dates. The user may also edit most of the particulars of a patient from here. Note: to make changes to a patient's address, phone number, etc. the user must access that patient in PCS. Changes made in PCS will be reflected in the application within 24 hours; Screen Elements: List Headings and Descriptions: Diagnosis* The Diagnosis assigned to the patient. Procedure* The procedure to be performed on the patient.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the interactive scheduling web portal as taught by Silver and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall in order to provide an automated tool that provides for a healthcare provider to facilitate decision making while capturing aggregate data to enable reporting on a patient waiting continuum (Marshall para 10) and improve decision making on allocating resources, removing resources, and creating new resources (Marshall para 8).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Laster Figure 4 discloses an interface that lists a procedure type at 424 and date at 426 as disclosed in claim 9, the combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads discloses the following limitation that Marshall further discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the case data includes a medical procedure listing. (Paras 209-225 and Fig. 8 disclose Procedure; Allows selection of the procedure to be performed from a drop down list (by default, specific to the specialty of the selected physician[s]). This list is derived from the list of procedures found in the ORSOS_PX_CODE table; Procedure Notes; Allows free text entry of any notes related to the procedure; Additional Procedure Allows selection of an additional procedure to be performed from a drop down list (by default, specific to the specialty of the selected physician[s]). This list is derived from the list of procedures found in the ORSOS_PX_CODE table. Paras 415-421 and Fig. 18 disclose Function: The View Patient screen allows the user to view the particulars of a patient on the wait list. This is the first screen the user will see once a patient is added to the list. From here the user can access audits, preoperative requirements, the OR booking form, and unavailable dates. The user may also edit most of the particulars of a patient from here. Note: to make changes to a patient's address, phone number, etc. the user must access that patient in PCS. Changes made in PCS will be reflected in the application within 24 hours; Screen Elements: List Headings and Descriptions: Diagnosis* The Diagnosis assigned to the patient. Procedure* The procedure to be performed on the patient.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the interactive scheduling web portal as taught by Silver and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall in order to provide an automated tool that provides for a healthcare provider to facilitate decision making while capturing aggregate data to enable reporting on a patient waiting continuum (Marshall para 10) and improve decision making on allocating resources, removing resources, and creating new resources (Marshall para 8).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads discloses the following limitation that Silver further discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence engine is in communication with a scheduling database. (Para 6 discloses according to one aspect of the present general inventive concept, the present invention provides a scheduling portal including a processor, a memory on which are stored machine readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to access medical provider data for a plurality of medical providers and store the medical provider data in a database, receive patient parameters from a patient mobile device and store the patient parameters in the database, determine if the patient parameters contain a scheduling request for at least one of the medical providers having the medical provider data stored in the database, schedule a requested appointment for the patient with the medical provider if the patient parameters contain a scheduling request, update a medical provider calendar in the database, and send the updated medical provider calendar to a medical provider mobile device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical
procedures as taught by Laster, the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall, and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the interactive scheduling web portal as taught by Silver in order to store medical provider data in a database and, after a scheduling request, send a notification to the patient mobile device if the medical provider is not available or available (Silver para 8-9) and schedule a requested appointment (Silver para 6).
Claim(s) 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US PG Pub 2017/0061375 A1) in view of Marshall (US PG Pub 2004/0249676 A1), further in view of Silver (US PG Pub 2018/0358123 A1), MyMedLeads Reputation Builder, and Mahadkar (US PG Pub 2014/0379361 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads does not fully disclose the following limitation that Mahadkar discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, (Para 32 discloses the insurance provider 150 may send a pre-authorization message 104a to the HPP-Platform notifying the pre-authorized fund deposit into the user’s account. The pre-authorized funds may have a status of “pending” as showing on the user’s account. The pre-authorized funds may have a status of “pending” as showing on the user’s account, and may be confirmed to be eligible to use upon user’s confirmation (e.g triggering payment for the scheduled medical procedure, etc.), and verification, e.g., upon insurance carrier’s verification. See further: Para 73.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall, and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the pre-approval process as taught by Mahadkar in order to obtain pre-approval of a payment associated with a potential medical treatment for a patient (Mahadkar para 17) or denial via a denial message (Mahadkar para 73) and thus avoid delays in medical treatment due to determining insurance coverage.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads does not fully disclose the following limitation that Mahadkar discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, further comprising an insurance provider interface in communication with an insurance provider system and in communication with the scheduler and configured to receive an indication from the insurance provider system if insurance accepts or denies the particular medical procedure. (Para 32 discloses in the above example, the insurance provider 150 may send a pre-authorization message 104a to the HPP-Platform [an insurance provider interface in communication with insurance provider system configured to receive an indication from the insurance provider system] notifying the pre-authorized fund deposit into the user's account. The pre-authorized funds may have a status of “pending” as showing on the user's account, and may be confirmed to be eligible to use upon user's confirmation (e.g., triggering payment for the scheduled medical procedure, etc.), and verification, e.g., upon insurance carrier's verification. Para 39 discloses the insurance provider may apply pre-stored rules to determine whether the payment request is “consistent,” which may allow a level of tolerance of difference, e.g., when the scheduled procedure in indicates a “knee surgery on the left,” but the procedure performed as indicated in includes a “knee surgery on the left plus cosmetic skin reconstruction,” such difference may be considered as tolerable [thus in communication with a scheduler and would have been obvious to combine with the scheduler as taught by Laster]. Para 73 discloses upon receiving the pre-authorization request, the insurance provider may extract information, such as a procedure code and an insurance policy code from the request 308. In one implementation, the insurance provider may perform an insurance pre-check based on the insurance policy 310 to determine whether user is qualified, e.g., whether the user has signed up for the HPP-Platform service, whether the user's insurance policy is eligible for the HPP-Platform service, and/or the like. If not, the user may receive a denial message 311 [indicating denial]]. Para 75 discloses the insurance provider may send a pre-authorization message for provisionally account loading 318 to the HPP-Platform. In one implementation, the HPP-Platform may provisionally load the user's HPP-Platform account 320, and send a pre-approved fund loading message 321 to the user, e.g. via automatic phone calls, email, text messages, and/or the like. See Further: Para 76 indicating approval wherein the HPP-Platform is the insurance provider.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall, and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the pre-approval process as taught by Mahadkar in order to obtain pre-approval of a payment associated with a potential medical treatment for a patient (Mahadkar para 17) or denial via a denial message (Mahadkar para 73) and thus avoid delays in medical treatment due to determining insurance coverage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US PG Pub 2017/0061375 A1) in view of Marshall (US PG Pub 2004/0249676 A1), further in view of Silver (US PG Pub 2018/0358123 A1), MyMedLeads Reputation Builder, and Johnson (US PG Pub 2012/0101847 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Laster discloses “the predictive model 112 may be a machine learning classifier, an artificial neural network, a support vector machine, a kernel machine or other machine learning model. Parameters of the model may be adjusted by using the information about the completed medical procedure as an additional training example” (See Laster para 142), the combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads does not fully disclose the following limitation that Johnson discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence engine is configured to infer the particular medical procedure from the patient diagnosis. (Para 33 discloses the treatment plan identifies a surgical procedure applicable to a symptom or diagnosis identified in the custom treatment plan. Para 130 and FIG. 10H disclose a diagnosis details screen according to an embodiment of the present invention (See Johnson para 96); A "Smart Treatment Plan", synonymous with "Customized Treatment Plan" is a custom treatment plan provided to a user when a user has a diagnosis that is to be treated, and has input (or had someone else input on his/her behalf) data into a profile. When the user inputs the profile information and taps the "Generate a Smart Treatment Plan" or "Generate a Customized Treatment Plan" button, a Smart Treatment Plan/Customized Treatment Plan is generated. Para 203 discloses to create a Smart Treatment Plan for sinusitis offered for a specific patient based upon that patient's inputs to the system… As noted above, possible procedures 2672 for treatment of the diagnosis are provided, as well as indications 2674 as to when each treatment is recommended, and the pros 2676 and cons 2678 of using the procedures.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the providing implants for surgical procedures as taught by Laster, the management systems and methods as taught by Marshall, and the MyMedLeads Reputation Builder with the mobile medical information system and methods of use as taught by Johnson in order to prepare a customized treatment plan for a patient and reduce the burden of inputting new records by care providers, in order to free up care provider’s time (See Johnson para 17).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US PG Pub 2017/0061375 A1) in view of Marshall (US PG Pub 2004/0249676 A1), further in view of Silver (US PG Pub 2018/0358123 A1), MyMedLeads Reputation Builder, and James Lee Hill, JR. (US PG Pub 2024/0194350 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Laster, Marshall, Silver, and MyMedLeads does not fully disclose the following limitation that James Lee Hill, JR. discloses:
The medical procedure scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the computer instructions further includes: a risk analyzer configured to generate a risk analysis of the particular medical procedure based on outcomes of historical medical procedures of the particular type on other patients by the healthcare practitioner or a group associated with the healthcare practitioner; and a notification generator configured to transmit the risk analysis to a user. (Para 7 discloses The computer executable components can further comprise a transfusion appropriateness analysis component that employs one or more AI tactics to determine a measure of appropriateness [risk analyzer configured to generate a risk analysis of the particular medical procedure] of the transfusion procedure for the patient based on the patient information, historical transfusion data for other patients and domain knowledge transfusion data [based on outcomes of historical medical procedures of the particular type on other patients by the healthcare practitioner or a group associated with the healthcare practitioner]. Para 8 discloses The computer executable components can further comprise a reporting component that presents recommendation data describing the recommendation to a clinician to facilitate clinical decision making for the patient prior to performance of the transfusion procedure. Paras 54-56 discloses the historical transfusion data 122 can comprise historically recorded information regarding actual transfusion procedures that were performed on patients in the past at the medical system/facility and/or at various different medical systems/facilities around the world. In this regard the historical transfusion data 122 can include historical transfusion information for a variety of different patients/patient groups (e.g., that are associated with different diagnosis, different demographics, different transfusion amounts/types and contexts, etc.) regarding the transfusions that were performed, specific attributes associated with each patient, specific attributes associated with each transfusion procedure, and associated patient responses to the transfusion procedures… Each (or in some implementations one or more) historical transfusion procedure can also be associated with information identifying or indicating the location where the transfusion procedure was performed (e.g., the specific hospital/clinic, the specific unit or area within the hospital or clinic, etc.), the timing of the procedure, the clinicians involved in the procedure, the type of blood product used, the source of the blood product used, the amount of blood product used, procedure details, and the like… The historical transfusion data 122 can also include post-transfusion information for each patient that identifies or indicates the patient's response to the procedure, including information identifying or indicating adverse reactions or complications associated with the procedure. Para 171 discloses at 1404, the system employs one or more artificial intelligence tactics to determine an appropriateness score (e.g., appropriateness score data 132) for the transfusion procedure for the patient based on the patient information, historical transfusion data for other patients and domain knowledge transfusion data (e.g., via the transfusion appropriateness analysis component 108). At 1406, the system determines a recommendation (e.g., transfusion recommendation data 134) regarding whether to proceed with the transfusion procedure or proceed with an alternative treatment path based on the transfusion appropriateness score (e.g., using transfusion recommendation component 116).)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been considered, and are persuasive in the removal of majority of the previously rejected limitations from claim 1. However, the claims still disclose, “analyze the treatment factors using a trained scheduling model; assign a medical procedure time slot for the particular medical procedure based on the analyzed treatment factors.” As previously presented, there is no mention of “assigning medical procedure time slots based on the analyzed treatment factors” nor of any paragraph relating to time slots or what they may be based on. The Applicant points to fig 7., para 63 and original claims 1, 8, and 9. The original claim 1, 8 and 9 do not disclose any time slots, nor do they disclose a scheduling model nor how they are trained. Thus, the argument and amendments are not persuasive in regards to these two limitations and the previous 112(a) rejection is held.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the amendment of “a graphical user interface configured to illustrate scheduled procedures for at least one healthcare facility, the graphical user interface configured to use distinctive coding to indicate an attribute of the procedure,” provides a practical application and significantly more because it improves the user interface of a computer system, by using distinctive coding to indicate attributes of procedures. There is no description of “distinctive coding” in the specification, however, the Applicant points to Para 64 which discloses, “the calendar may be color-coded.” Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting “distinctive coding” an indication that visually differentiates each scheduled procedure. Thus, the amendment is merely describing a general graphic user interface used to display information and is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and, thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the graphical user interface does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
The Applicant further argues that the social media interface configured to solicit a testimonial from the patient, automatically format the testimonial for presentation on a social media profile and transmit the formatted testimonial to be associated with the social media profile” provides a practical application and significantly more because it improves the computer system by conducting automatic formatting for presentation on a social media profile and transmitting to be associated with the social media profile. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer system (the processor and memory in the claim) is not improved by utilizing a social media interface, the computing system is merely displaying and transmitting data. There is no clear improvement, the computing system is functioning as expected. Further, the Applicant compares the social media interface to example 42 and states that the social media interface integrates the idea into a practical application by automatically formatting the testimonial for presentation on the social media profile. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 42, the claims were integrated into a practical application because of the real time conversion of non-standardized format to a standardized format solved the technical problem of “updated information, which is often-times incomplete since records in separate locations are not timely or readily shared or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies.” The claims of the instant application merely format the testimonial for presentation on a social media profile. The specification does not disclose any technical problem that formatting the testimonial for presentation is solving. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
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 SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 pm.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights