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 .
Claims 1, 14 and 18 are amended. Claims 3 and 11 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are drawn to a system for remote patient assignment which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 14-17 are drawn to a method for remote patient assignment which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 18-20 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for remote patient assignment which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 (Group I) recite a system for remote patient assignment comprising:
a memory storing one or more instructions (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it, MPEP §2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
a patient assignment server comprising a processor and a network, wherein the patient assignment server is communicatively coupled to one or more patient terminals and one more medical facility servers via a network (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), and
wherein the patient assignment server includes a processor in communication with the memory, the processor configured to (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it):
receive a scheduling request, wherein in the patient enters the scheduling request into a computing device of a patient over a network (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), wherein the scheduling request includes an appointment type;
receive information from each of a plurality of medical facilities;
determine an estimated service time for the patient to be treated at each of the plurality of medical facilities, wherein the estimated service time includes an estimated travel time for the patient to arrive at a respective medical facility, an estimated waiting time for the patient at the respective medical facility, and an estimated consultation time with a medical professional for the patient;
select a medical facility of the plurality of medical facilities that minimizes a sum of the determined estimated service time for the patient and a probability that the determined estimated service time for the patient is greater than or equal to a predefined threshold;
assign the patient to the selected medical facility, wherein assigning the patient to the selected medical facility includes transmitting a scheduling request to the medical facility server of the selected medical facility and receiving confirmation from a medical facility professional;
schedule an appointment for the patient at the selected medical facility for the appointment type;
transmit, using the patient assignment server (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), a notification to the patient terminal (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), which notifies the patient of the appointment,
display, on a display of the patient terminal MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), the appointment,
wherein the medical facility of the plurality of medical facilities is selected according to the below relationship:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein
ωp is a level of severity of a health condition of the patient,
ςp is a trade-off factor, for the patient, that determines the relative significance of STTP,
Lp is a service time of the patient,
δp is the predefined threshold, and
IP(Lp> δp) is the probability that the determined estimated service time for the patient is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold,
PNG
media_image2.png
105
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the estimated travel time for the patient to arrive at the respective medical facility is calculated according to the following equation:
wherein IE[tp,h] is the estimated travel time for the patient, p is the patient, h is the respective medical facility, tp,h is a random travel time for the patient to reach the respective medical facility, Dp,h is a distance between the patient and the respective medical facility, C is a speed of travel, and αp,h is a mean value of a random variable accounting for the randomness of the travel time.
The bolded limitations and the equations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mathematical concept and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or mathematical calculations and/or fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the mathematical concept/ the method of organizing human activity are underlined and deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 14-17 and Claims 18-20 is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-13 (Group I), because the only difference between Claims is they are directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the information from each of the plurality of medical facilities includes a current quantity of patients at each medical facility, an occupancy state of each medical facility, or an availability state of each medical facility, Claim 4 recites wherein the estimated travel time for the patient to arrive at a respective medical facility is determined using at least one machine learning model including a neural network, Claim 5 recites wherein the estimated waiting time for the patient at the respective medical facility is calculated based on a total quantity of patients at the respective medical facility, a quantity of patients waiting to be seen at the respective medical facility, and a condition of the patient, Claim 6 recites wherein the estimated waiting time for the patient at the respective medical facility is calculated based on each patient being served on a first-come first-served basis at the respective medical facility, Claim 7 recites wherein the estimated waiting time for the patient at the respective medical facility is an average waiting time at the respective medical facility, Claim 8 recites wherein the estimated consultation time with a medical professional for the patient is determined by a shifted exponential distribution function, Claim 9 recites wherein the shifted exponential distribution function is defined by:
PNG
media_image3.png
136
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
50
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
56
254
media_image5.png
Greyscale
p is the patient,
h is the respective medical facility,
βh is a minimum consultation time at the respective medical facility,
µh is an average consultation time at the respective medical facility,
Vp is a total time of a visit by a patient at the respective medical facility, and
s is a type of service for the consultation,
Claim 10 recites wherein the information from each of the plurality of medical facilities is updated at regular intervals, Claim 12 recites wherein the medical facility of the plurality of medical facilities is selected based on reinforcement learning, Claim 13 recites wherein a reward of the reinforcement learning is defined as the joint minimization of the estimated service time and the probability that the determined estimated service time for the patient is greater than or equal to a predefined threshold, wherein a state of the reinforcement learning is defined by: (i) an expected service time in the last k-steps, wherein k is an integer, (ii) a quantity of patients in each medical facility, and (iii) an average waiting time in each medical facility, and wherein an action of the reinforcement learning is represented by a probability vector of choosing a medical facility to serve the scheduling request, etc…, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 14 and 18.
Furthermore, Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of processor, memory, server, display, terminal and computer network, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0018-0021] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of a network, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of the internet, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0018-0021] of the Specification disclose that the additional elements (i.e. memory, processor, network, servers, terminals) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives scheduling/patient data, and transmits the data over a network, for example the Internet;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp V. CLS Bank -similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing od data in a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-10 and 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims and merely further limit the abstract idea recited in the claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding subject matter eligibility, Applicant respectfully maintains “the remote patient assignment system is configured to determine an estimated service time and to select a medical facility of the plurality of medical facilities that minimizes a sum of the determined estimated service time for the patient and a probability that the determined estimated service time for the patient is greater than or equal to a predefined threshold…and then assigns the patient to an appointment based on these determinations,” and therefore the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the recited additional elements (all of the computer hardware) do not remove the claimed invention from being abstract. Applicant further argues a GUI example, however, that is not relevant to the case at hand because that claim was a technical problem with a technical solution. There is not technical problem present in the instant claims.
Applicant states that “[a] simple statement that these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application squarely contradicts the noted findings under MPEP 2106.04(a)(l) and is antithetical to the spirit of the August 4, 2025 memo (Remarks, page 15).” Examiner followed the procedure outlined in the MPEP. Each additional element was analyzed according the required steps outlined in MPEP § 2106. The abstract idea cannot be used to integrate itself into a practical application. The claims are directed towards organizing human activity, where the focus is on “efficiently manag[ing] healthcare facilities for remote patient scheduling at medical facilities (Specification, [0002]).”
Applicant cites to Ex parte Desjardins, arguing that it is similar. The instant claims do not result in an improvement to machine learning as in Desjardins. There is nothing apparent in the disclosure or resulting from the claims to support this assertion.
Examiner notes that specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Any improvement resulting from the claims is to the abstract idea itself, rather than the additional elements recited in the claims. The claims clearly recite an abstract idea as they use mathematical formulas for arranging appointments for patients based on a variety of factors.
The additional elements found in the claims are recited at the apply it level or insignificant extra-solution activity, and do not result in a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 14 and 18 remain rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. The dependent claims fail to rise to the level of a practical application or significantly more as they do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights