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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed on 16 December 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-2, 5-7, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 have been amended; claim 24 is newly added.
Now claims 1-9, 12-16 and 18-24 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 1-9, 12-16 and 18-24 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, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite methods for updating a patient’s schedule. The limitations of:
Claim 1
[… obtaining …] patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker and time and date information associated with the non-urgent scheduled appointment; [… obtaining …] threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data; generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date; comparing the threshold criteria to the comparison value; and after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, rescheduling the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a new date that is earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment.
Claim 6
[… obtaining …] patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker as measured […] over a period of time and the non-urgent scheduled appointment including time and date information; generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date; comparing threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data, to the comparison value; upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a first notification comprising a first indication that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a first new date after the future date, and a request for confirmation of the first proposal; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date before the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and (iii) a request for confirmation of the second proposal; upon generating the first notification, [… providing …] the first notification to a medical practitioner; and upon generating the second notification, [… providing …] the second notification to the medical practitioner.
Claim 14
[… obtaining …] patient data, measured […], for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a value for a biomarker; [… obtaining …] threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient and corresponding patient data for at least one other patient; [… obtaining …] scheduling information for the patient, the scheduling information including time and date information for the non-urgent scheduled appointment; generating a comparison value for the value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the value to one or more values of a plurality of values in view of the future date; upon receipt of the patient data for the patient having the non-urgent scheduled appointment, comparing the threshold criteria to the comparison value; upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a first notification to a healthcare provider, the first notification comprising a first indication that the biomarker does not satisfy the threshold criteria and a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a first new date later than the future date, and automatically generating a new scheduled appointment for the first new date; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert to the healthcare provider, the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date; upon generating the first notification, [… providing …] the first notification to the healthcare provider; upon generating the second alert, [… providing …] the second alert to the healthcare provider; and upon [… obtaining …] confirmation of the first proposal or the second proposal, [… providing …] details regarding the new scheduled appointment to a healthcare provider.
, as drafted, is a system which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). That is, by a human user interacting with a diagnostic device, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, by the human user interacting with the diagnostic device, the claim encompasses collecting and monitoring patient data to adjust the scheduling of an appointment between a patient and a healthcare provider. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving… communicating…” and a diagnostic device. The “receiving… communicating…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. The diagnostic device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic off the shelf sensor) and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving… communicating…” and a diagnostic device were considered extra-solution activity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “receiving… communicating…” steps have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The diagnostic device has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Brackett (2006/0136267): see below but at least figures 1-2, paragraph [0010]; Anumolu (2016/0253457): Figure 1, paragraph [0017]; use of diagnostics device to monitor patient vitals is well-understood, routine and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18-24 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claims 2, 7 and 20 further describe the scheduled appointment, but do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 3, 8 and 19 further describe the biomarker, but do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 4 and 9 recites a sensor device however, similar to the diagnostic device already considered above and incorporated herein, the sensor device is used to generally link and is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Claim 5 recites scheduling of the appointment, but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 10-11, 18 and 21-22 describe the date of the scheduled/re-scheduled appointment, but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 12, 15-16 and 23-24 describes communicating to the patient, however transmission of data was already considered above and is incorporated herein.
Claim 13 describes aggregation of data of similar patients, but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0136267 (hereafter “Brackett”; already of record in the IDS), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0253457 (hereafter “Anumolu”), in further view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0286508 (hereafter “Leontovich”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 1, Brackett teaches a method for updating patient scheduling information (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0018], “a method and system for automated patient scheduling based on evaluation of remote monitoring data from a remote monitoring device”), the method comprising:
receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker […] (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “care providers will require the patients to visit regularly so that factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. The Examiner interprets “existing patient schedules” teaches what is required of a patient having a future non-urgent scheduled appointment under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
[… having …] criteria for the biomarker, the […] criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], “pre-set expectations”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The data monitor 120 is capable of accessing stored data 122. The stored data 122 may include a Personal Health Record (PHR) that includes data related to each individual patient or participant. The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures. The stored data 122 may also include an index such as an Enterprise Management Person Index (EMPT) provided with the Cerner Access Management System. The EMPI facilitates safe care by supplying complete and accurate information regarding a patient's current and past medical conditions and patient norms… the data monitor 120 may evaluate the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114 to determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122. Evaluation of data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels, but may include further steps”. Also see, paragraph [0039]. The Examiner notes the index is established using current and past patient history and is a threshold criteria under the broadest reasonable interpretation); […];
comparing the threshold criteria to the comparison value (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], “evaluating the data received from the remote monitoring system to determine if the received data meets pre-set expectations”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The data monitor 120 evaluates the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114. The data monitor 120 is capable of accessing stored data 122. The stored data 122 may include a Personal Health Record (PHR) that includes data related to each individual patient or participant. The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures. The stored data 122 may also include an index… facilitates safe care by supplying complete and accurate information regarding a patient's current and past medical conditions and patient norms… the data monitor 120 may evaluate the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114 to determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122. Evaluation of data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels, but may include further steps”. Also see, paragraph [0039]. The Examiner notes data is compared to the norms using the index (i.e., a threshold criteria) and teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, rescheduling the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a new date […], the rescheduled appointment being [… an adjustment to the date …] of the non-urgent scheduled appointment. (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… If the patient's data is normal, the data monitor 120 may determine that a currently scheduled appointment is unnecessary and forward this information to the scheduling module 130… The scheduling module 130 may also be capable of scheduling a new appointment and storing the appointment in the patient's existing schedule 132”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”).
Bracket may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker and time and date information associated with the non-urgent scheduled appointment;
receiving threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data;
after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, rescheduling the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a new date that is earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment.
Anumolu teaches receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker and time and date information associated with the non-urgent scheduled appointment (Anumolu: Figures 1-4, paragraph [0022], “A scheduling processor may establish an initial visitation schedule for each patient and send a notification to the assigned healthcare workers… The visit may be scheduled on a repeating basis (e.g., biweekly, weekly, monthly, etc.) and for a particular day of a week, month and/or time of day”, paragraph [0026], “detect critical events with respect to the vital signs of each of the patients… If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraph [0033], “each vital sign (e.g., heart rate, respiration, blood pressure, blood oxygen level, etc.) may be given a number of respective threshold values”, paragraph [0041], “the categorization processor retrieves and reviews the vital signs received from each patient”);
receiving threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data (Anumolu: paragraph [0020], “patient file may include a number of fields unique to the patient… A respective set of threshold values 40, 42 may be saved in the file for each monitored parameter”, paragraph [0026], “retrieve the latest vital signs of each patient (e.g., heartbeat, blood pressure respiration rate, etc.) and compare them with the threshold values assigned to the patient”);
after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, rescheduling the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a new date that is earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment (Anumolu: paragraphs [0026]-[0028], “If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraphs [0033]-[0036], “automation of the scheduling of the home visits is adjusted dynamically based upon a comparison of currently available vital signs with respective threshold values… life threatening conditions and are given the highest… normal deviations and are normally addressed through the normal scheduling process”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “visit some patients on an early schedule instead of a normal schedule in the case of patients who have a greater priority… If the categorization is of an intermediate level, then the visit may be rescheduled with the same healthcare worker originally scheduled to visit the patient. In this case, the visit is simply scheduled via the scheduling processor for an earlier time or date”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a date and time for a future scheduled appointment for schedule management using an earlier date and receiving threshold criteria as taught by Anumolu within the schedule management using health parameters as taught by Brackett with the motivation of “improve the quality of care” (Anumolu: paragraph [0004]).
Brackett and Anumolu may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date;
Leontovich teaches generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date (Leontovich: paragraph [0009], “determining a state of the extrapolated fitted periodic function on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates, wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is greater than a threshold… wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is less than a threshold”, paragraph [0082], “The first derivative shows whether the function at that point is increasing (positive value), decreasing (negative value) or is not changing (zero) and the magnitude of the first derivative reflects the magnitude of the trend”, paragraph [0092], “single parameter may be used to characterize both the magnitude of change and the trend of the fluctuation for a given biological variable”. The Examiner notes a trend (i.e., a derivative or expected rate of change) is determined and used in comparisons to determine a date and teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include determining a trend and using the trend to predict future values as taught by Leontovich within the comparison of patient data to schedule appointments as taught by Brackett and Anumolu with the motivation of providing “enhanced treatment effect and improved clinical outcome” (Leontovich: paragraph [0122]).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 2, Brackett, Anumolu and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the non-urgent scheduled appointment comprises one or more of a checkup with a medical practitioner, an out-patient procedure, or an in-patient procedure (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “managing scheduling of patient appointments with care providers… patients with chronic or persistent conditions are scheduled for appointments at regular intervals in order to enable care providers to monitor the patients' conditions at the regularly scheduled appointments… care providers will require the patients to visit regularly”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. A regularly scheduled appointment reads on a checkup under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 3, Brackett, Anumolu and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the biomarker comprises one or more of an analyte, a temperature, a health condition, cholesterol measurement, blood pressure, or heart rate (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 4, Brackett, Anumolu and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the metric value comprises a value measured by a sensor device or trend data generated by the sensor device over a period (Brackett: paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 5, Brackett, Anumolu and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches after determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, maintaining the non-urgent scheduled appointment (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122”, paragraph [0040], “If the data monitor 120 determines that the received data is not within a normal range in step 310… send a notification to the patient that the patient should report for the scheduled appointment”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 21, Brackett, Anumolu and Leontovich teaches the limitation of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a new date is identified based on a prediction of when the biomarker will satisfy the threshold criteria and a current date (Brackett: Figure 4, paragraph [0007], “re-schedule a patient appointment when necessary”, paragraph [0043], “auto-reschedule an appointment based on data being remotely monitored from the patient”; Leontovich: Figure 1, paragraphs [0004]-[0005], “a method of identifying one or more favorable dates to deliver a pharmacological treatment to a patient… identifying at least one of the plurality of proposed treatment dates as a favorable date to deliver the pharmacological treatment to the patient based on the determined states of each of the biological variables on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates”. The Examiner notes in combination the claim is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 6-12, 14-16, 18-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0136267 (hereafter “Brackett”; already of record in the IDS), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0253457 (hereafter “Anumolu”), in further view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0090132 (hereafter “Bender”), in further view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0286508 (hereafter “Leontovich”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 6, Brackett teaches a method for updating patient scheduling information (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0018], “a method and system for automated patient scheduling based on evaluation of remote monitoring data from a remote monitoring device”), the method comprising:
receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker as measured by a diagnostic device […] (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “care providers will require the patients to visit regularly so that factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. The Examiner interprets “existing patient schedules” teaches what is required of a patient having a future non-urgent scheduled appointment under the broadest reasonable interpretation); […];
comparing threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient or population health data, to the comparison value (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], “evaluating the data received from the remote monitoring system to determine if the received data meets pre-set expectations”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The data monitor 120 evaluates the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114. The data monitor 120 is capable of accessing stored data 122. The stored data 122 may include a Personal Health Record (PHR) that includes data related to each individual patient or participant. The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures. The stored data 122 may also include an index… the data monitor 120 may evaluate the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114 to determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122. Evaluation of data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels, but may include further steps”. Also see, paragraph [0039]);
upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a first notification comprising a first indication that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, […] reschedule the scheduled appointment to a first new date after the future date, […] (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… If the patient's data is normal, the data monitor 120 may determine that a currently scheduled appointment is unnecessary and forward this information to the scheduling module 130… The scheduling module 130 may also be capable of scheduling a new appointment and storing the appointment in the patient's existing schedule 132”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Examiner notes a comparison to threshold criteria is determined and if the parameters are within acceptable limits (i.e., the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria) than the appointment is rescheduled to a future date);
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date […] the future date, the rescheduled appointment being [… an adjustment to the date …] of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and […] (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… The scheduling module 130 may also be capable of scheduling a new appointment and storing the appointment in the patient's existing schedule 132… it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients… it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency. The scheduling module 130 may automatically schedule a room for a patient in case of emergency”, paragraph [0040], “If the data monitor 120 determines that the received data is not within a normal range in step 310… send a notification to the patient that the patient should report for the scheduled appointment”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits… and rescheduled for… other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Examiner notes a comparison to threshold criteria is determined and if the parameters are not within acceptable limits (i.e., the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria) than the appointment is rescheduled, which teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
upon generating the first notification, communicating the first notification to a medical practitioner (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… For example, it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients in order to accommodate a single remotely monitored patient. In some instances, it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency”); and
upon generating the second notification, communicating the second notification to the [… patient …] (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”).
Bracket may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker as measured by a diagnostic device over a period of time and the non-urgent scheduled appointment including time and date information;
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date before the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and […];
Anumolu teaches receiving patient data for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a metric value for a biomarker as measured by a diagnostic device over a period of time and the non-urgent scheduled appointment including time and date information (Anumolu: Figures 1-4, paragraph [0022], “A scheduling processor may establish an initial visitation schedule for each patient and send a notification to the assigned healthcare workers… The visit may be scheduled on a repeating basis (e.g., biweekly, weekly, monthly, etc.) and for a particular day of a week, month and/or time of day”, paragraph [0026], “detect critical events with respect to the vital signs of each of the patients… If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraph [0033], “each vital sign (e.g., heart rate, respiration, blood pressure, blood oxygen level, etc.) may be given a number of respective threshold values”, paragraph [0041], “the categorization processor retrieves and reviews the vital signs received from each patient”. The Examiner notes a rate is determined over a period of a time and teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date before the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and […] (Anumolu: paragraphs [0026]-[0028], “If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraphs [0033]-[0036], “automation of the scheduling of the home visits is adjusted dynamically based upon a comparison of currently available vital signs with respective threshold values… life threatening conditions and are given the highest… normal deviations and are normally addressed through the normal scheduling process”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “visit some patients on an early schedule instead of a normal schedule in the case of patients who have a greater priority… If the categorization is of an intermediate level, then the visit may be rescheduled with the same healthcare worker originally scheduled to visit the patient. In this case, the visit is simply scheduled via the scheduling processor for an earlier time or date”),
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a date and time for a future scheduled appointment with collected health data over time for schedule management to an earlier date as taught by Anumolu within the schedule management using health parameters as taught by Brackett with the motivation of “improve the quality of care” (Anumolu: paragraph [0004]).
Brackett and Anumolu may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a first notification comprising a first indication that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a first new date after the future date, and a request for confirmation of the first proposal; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date before the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and a request for confirmation of the second proposal;
upon generating the second notification, communicating the second notification to the medical practitioner.
Bender teaches upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a first notification comprising a first indication that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria, a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a first new date after the future date, and a request for confirmation of the first proposal; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, automatically generating a second notification comprising (i) a second indication that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria, (ii) a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a second new date before the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment, and a request for confirmation of the second proposal (Bender: Figure 2, paragraph [0056], “appointment scheduling program 200 automatically selects an appointment date and time, and provides the appointment to the client and/or service provider for confirmation. In another embodiment, appointment scheduling program 200 provides a list of matching available appointment times for selection and confirmation by the client and/or service provider (e.g., confirms a selection based on client response). Appointment scheduling program 200 receives selection and confirmation of an appointment time from a client and/or service provider, and schedules the selected appointment in schedule 127”, paragraph [0068], “appointment scheduling program 200 provides notification 128 for appointment changes to affected clients and/or service providers… appointment scheduling program 200 sends notification 128 as a text message and/or email to affected clients and/or the service provider for viewing on client device 110 and/or service provider device 150… appointment scheduling program 200 includes a confirmation request as part of notification 128 for the time change from the client (e.g., time of appointment changes to earlier than the suggested advance arrival time)”);
upon generating the second notification, communicating the second notification to the medical practitioner (Bender: Figure 2, paragraph [0068], “appointment scheduling program 200 provides notification 128 for appointment changes to affected clients and/or service providers”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a proposal and confirmation request as taught by Bender within the use of health data to adjust a schedule as taught by Brackett and Anumolu with the motivation of “improves the efficiency of the appointment scheduling system, improves interactions between the client and the service provider, prioritizes appointments, optimizes the utilization of resources, and reduces rescheduling” (Bender: paragraph [0011]).
Brackett, Anumolu and Bender may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date;
Leontovich teaches generating a comparison value for the metric value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the metric value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the metric value to one or more metric values of a plurality of metric values in view of the future date (Leontovich: paragraph [0009], “determining a state of the extrapolated fitted periodic function on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates, wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is greater than a threshold… wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is less than a threshold”, paragraph [0082], “The first derivative shows whether the function at that point is increasing (positive value), decreasing (negative value) or is not changing (zero) and the magnitude of the first derivative reflects the magnitude of the trend”, paragraph [0092], “single parameter may be used to characterize both the magnitude of change and the trend of the fluctuation for a given biological variable”. The Examiner notes a trend (i.e., a derivative or expected rate of change) is determined and used in comparisons to determine a date and teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include determining a trend and using the trend to predict future values as taught by Leontovich within the comparison of patient data to schedule appointments as taught by Brackett, Anumolu and Bender with the motivation of providing “enhanced treatment effect and improved clinical outcome” (Leontovich: paragraph [0122]).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 7, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the non-urgent scheduled appointment comprises one or more of a checkup with the medical practitioner, an out-patient procedure, or an in-patient procedure (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “managing scheduling of patient appointments with care providers… patients with chronic or persistent conditions are scheduled for appointments at regular intervals in order to enable care providers to monitor the patients' conditions at the regularly scheduled appointments… care providers will require the patients to visit regularly”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. A regularly scheduled appointment reads on a checkup under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 8, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the biomarker comprises one or more of a blood glucose measurement, a measured temperature, a health condition, nutrition details, a medication regimen, cholesterol measurement, blood pressure, or heart rate (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 9, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the metric value comprises a value measured by the diagnostic device or trend data generated based on the metric value over a period (Brackett: paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 12, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein communicating the first notification further comprises communicating the first notification to the patient (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… For example, it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients in order to accommodate a single remotely monitored patient. In some instances, it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Rescheduled appointments are provided to the patient via a notification).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 14, Brackett teaches a method for updating patient scheduling information (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0018], “a method and system for automated patient scheduling based on evaluation of remote monitoring data from a remote monitoring device”), the method comprising:
receiving patient data, measured by a diagnostic device, for a patient having a non-urgent scheduled appointment on a future date, the patient data comprising a value for a biomarker (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “care providers will require the patients to visit regularly so that factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. The Examiner interprets “existing patient schedules” teaches what is required of a patient having a future non-urgent scheduled appointment under the broadest reasonable interpretation); […];
upon receipt of the patient data for the patient having the non-urgent scheduled appointment, comparing the threshold criteria to the comparison value (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], “evaluating the data received from the remote monitoring system to determine if the received data meets pre-set expectations”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The data monitor 120 evaluates the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114. The data monitor 120 is capable of accessing stored data 122. The stored data 122 may include a Personal Health Record (PHR) that includes data related to each individual patient or participant. The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures. The stored data 122 may also include an index… the data monitor 120 may evaluate the data received from the remote monitor processing component 114 to determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122. Evaluation of data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels, but may include further steps”. Also see, paragraph [0039]);
upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a first notification to a healthcare provider, the first notification comprising a first indication that that the biomarker does not satisfy the threshold criteria and […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a first new date later than the future date, and automatically generating a new scheduled appointment for the new date (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… If the patient's data is normal, the data monitor 120 may determine that a currently scheduled appointment is unnecessary and forward this information to the scheduling module 130… The scheduling module 130 may also be capable of scheduling a new appointment and storing the appointment in the patient's existing schedule 132”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Examiner notes a comparison to threshold criteria is determined and if the parameters are within acceptable limits (i.e., the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria) than the appointment is rescheduled to a future date);
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert […], the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date [… different …] than the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being [… an adjustment to the date…] of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… The scheduling module 130 may also be capable of scheduling a new appointment and storing the appointment in the patient's existing schedule 132… it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients… it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency. The scheduling module 130 may automatically schedule a room for a patient in case of emergency”, paragraph [0040], “If the data monitor 120 determines that the received data is not within a normal range in step 310… send a notification to the patient that the patient should report for the scheduled appointment”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits… and rescheduled for… other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Examiner notes a comparison to threshold criteria is determined and if the parameters are not within acceptable limits (i.e., the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria) than the appointment is rescheduled, which teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
upon generating the first notification, communicating the first notification to the healthcare provider (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… For example, it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients in order to accommodate a single remotely monitored patient. In some instances, it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency”);
upon generating the second alert, communicating the second alert to the [… patient …] (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”); and […].
Bracket may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
receiving threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient and corresponding patient data for at least one other patient;
receiving scheduling information for the patient, the scheduling information including time and date information for the non-urgent scheduled appointment;
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert […], the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date,
Anumolu teaches receiving threshold criteria for the biomarker, the threshold criteria established based at least in part on a patient history of the patient and corresponding patient data for at least one other patient (Anumolu: paragraphs [0017]-[0020], “The vital signs (i.e., parameters) of each of the patients (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen level, etc.) are monitored by one or more sensors 22, 24… The processor within the server may save the reading into a corresponding file 36, 38 maintained for each of the patients… A respective set of threshold values 40, 42 may be saved in the file for each monitored parameter”, paragraphs [0040]-[0043], “the categorization processor retrieves and reviews the vital signs received from each patient. The categorization processor may determine a norm based upon average values and identify deviations from this norm”, The patient data is used establish norms (i.e., threshold criteria) and teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
receiving scheduling information for the patient, the scheduling information including time and date information for the non-urgent scheduled appointment (Anumolu: Figures 1-4, paragraph [0022], “A scheduling processor may establish an initial visitation schedule for each patient and send a notification to the assigned healthcare workers… The visit may be scheduled on a repeating basis (e.g., biweekly, weekly, monthly, etc.) and for a particular day of a week, month and/or time of day”, paragraph [0026], “detect critical events with respect to the vital signs of each of the patients… If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraph [0033], “each vital sign (e.g., heart rate, respiration, blood pressure, blood oxygen level, etc.) may be given a number of respective threshold values”, paragraph [0041], “the categorization processor retrieves and reviews the vital signs received from each patient”. The Examiner notes a rate is determined over a period of a time and teaches what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert […], the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and […] reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date (Anumolu: paragraphs [0026]-[0028], “If one or more of the vital signs of a particular patient exceeds a corresponding threshold value, then the alerting processor determines that an urgent need exists and expedites a visit to the patient by one of the healthcare workers”, paragraphs [0033]-[0036], “automation of the scheduling of the home visits is adjusted dynamically based upon a comparison of currently available vital signs with respective threshold values… life threatening conditions and are given the highest… normal deviations and are normally addressed through the normal scheduling process”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “visit some patients on an early schedule instead of a normal schedule in the case of patients who have a greater priority… If the categorization is of an intermediate level, then the visit may be rescheduled with the same healthcare worker originally scheduled to visit the patient. In this case, the visit is simply scheduled via the scheduling processor for an earlier time or date”),
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a date and time for a future scheduled appointment for schedule management to earlier dates as taught by Anumolu within the schedule management using health parameters as taught by Brackett with the motivation of “improve the quality of care” (Anumolu: paragraph [0004]).
Brackett and Anumolu may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a first notification to a healthcare provider, the first notification comprising a first indication that the biomarker does not satisfy the threshold criteria and a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a first new date later than the future date, and automatically generating a new scheduled appointment for the first new date; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert to the healthcare provider, the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date earlier the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date;
upon generating the second alert, communicating the second alert to the healthcare provider;
upon receiving confirmation of the first proposal or the second proposal, communicating details regarding the new scheduled appointment to a healthcare provider.
Bender teaches upon determining that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a first notification to a healthcare provider, the first notification comprising a first indication that the biomarker does not satisfy the threshold criteria and a first proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a first new date later than the future date, and automatically generating a new scheduled appointment for the first new date; upon determining that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria: automatically generating a second alert to the healthcare provider, the second alert comprising a second indication that that the biomarker does satisfy the threshold criteria and a second proposal to reschedule the non-urgent scheduled appointment for a second new date earlier the future date, the rescheduled appointment for the second new date being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment for the future date; and automatically generating the new scheduled appointment for the second new date (Bender: Figure 2, paragraph [0056], “appointment scheduling program 200 automatically selects an appointment date and time, and provides the appointment to the client and/or service provider for confirmation. In another embodiment, appointment scheduling program 200 provides a list of matching available appointment times for selection and confirmation by the client and/or service provider (e.g., confirms a selection based on client response). Appointment scheduling program 200 receives selection and confirmation of an appointment time from a client and/or service provider, and schedules the selected appointment in schedule 127”, paragraph [0068], “appointment scheduling program 200 provides notification 128 for appointment changes to affected clients and/or service providers… appointment scheduling program 200 sends notification 128 as a text message and/or email to affected clients and/or the service provider for viewing on client device 110 and/or service provider device 150… appointment scheduling program 200 includes a confirmation request as part of notification 128 for the time change from the client (e.g., time of appointment changes to earlier than the suggested advance arrival time)”);
upon generating the second alert, communicating the second alert to the healthcare provider (Bender: Figure 2, paragraph [0068], “appointment scheduling program 200 provides notification 128 for appointment changes to affected clients and/or service providers”);
upon receiving confirmation of the first proposal or the second proposal, communicating details regarding the new scheduled appointment to a healthcare provider (Bender: Figure 2, paragraph [0030], “if appointment tracking program 300 changes schedule 127, appointment tracking program 300 notifies the user of client device 110 of the changes”, paragraph [0056], “Appointment scheduling program 200 receives selection and confirmation of an appointment time from a client and/or service provider, and schedules the selected appointment in schedule 127”, paragraph [0068], “In step 226, appointment scheduling program 200 provides notification 128 for appointment changes to affected clients and/or service providers”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a proposal and confirmation request as taught by Bender within the use of health data to adjust a schedule as taught by Brackett and Anumolu with the motivation of “improves the efficiency of the appointment scheduling system, improves interactions between the client and the service provider, prioritizes appointments, optimizes the utilization of resources, and reduces rescheduling” (Bender: paragraph [0011]).
Brackett, Anumolu and Bender may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
generating a comparison value for the value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the value to one or more values of a plurality of values in view of the future date;
Leontovich teaches generating a comparison value for the value, the generating comprising: identifying an expected rate of change for the value over a first period; and determining the comparison value by applying the expected rate of change for the value to one or more values of a plurality of values in view of the future date (Leontovich: paragraph [0009], “determining a state of the extrapolated fitted periodic function on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates, wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is greater than a threshold… wherein the state on a proposed treatment date is determined to be favorable if the extrapolated fitted periodic function is less than a threshold”, paragraph [0082], “The first derivative shows whether the function at that point is increasing (positive value), decreasing (negative value) or is not changing (zero) and the magnitude of the first derivative reflects the magnitude of the trend”, paragraph [0092], “single parameter may be used to characterize both the magnitude of change and the trend of the fluctuation for a given biological variable”. The Examiner notes a trend (i.e., a derivative or expected rate of change) is determined and used in comparisons to determine a date and teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include determining a trend and using the trend to predict future values as taught by Leontovich within the comparison of patient data to schedule appointments as taught by Brackett, Anumolu and Bender with the motivation of providing “enhanced treatment effect and improved clinical outcome” (Leontovich: paragraph [0122]).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 15, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches further comprising conveying a third alert to the patient that the non-urgent scheduled appointment has been rescheduled due to a determination that the comparison value does satisfy the threshold criteria (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 16, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches conveying a third alert to the patient that the non-urgent scheduled appointment has been rescheduled due to a determination that the comparison value does not satisfy the threshold criteria (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… For example, it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients in order to accommodate a single remotely monitored patient. In some instances, it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency. The scheduling module 130 may automatically schedule a room for a patient in case of emergency”, paragraph [0040], “If the data monitor 120 determines that the received data is not within a normal range in step 310… send a notification to the patient that the patient should report for the scheduled appointment”. Also see, Bender: paragraph [0068]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 18, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches wherein at least one of the first new date or the second new date is identified based on a prediction of when the biomarker will satisfy the threshold criteria and a current date (Leontovich: Figure 1, paragraphs [0004]-[0005], “a method of identifying one or more favorable dates to deliver a pharmacological treatment to a patient… identifying at least one of the plurality of proposed treatment dates as a favorable date to deliver the pharmacological treatment to the patient based on the determined states of each of the biological variables on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 17, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 19, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the biomarker comprises one or more of a blood glucose measurement, a measured temperature, a health condition, nutrition details, a medication regimen, cholesterol measurement, blood pressure, or heart rate (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “factors such as blood pressure, heart functioning, glucose levels, or other medical characteristics may be verified at regular intervals”, paragraph [0012], “remote monitoring device generates data related to at least one medical characteristic of the patient. The method includes transmitting the generated data to a data monitor”, paragraph [0028], “The remotely located monitoring device 220 may be a device such as a home glucometer kit”, paragraph [0030], “receive monitoring information from the remote patient monitoring device 220”, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], “data may include checking of parameters such as blood pressure or glucose levels”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 20, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the non-urgent scheduled appointment comprises one or more of a checkup with the healthcare provider, an out-patient procedure, or an in-patient procedure (Brackett: paragraph [0004], “managing scheduling of patient appointments with care providers… patients with chronic or persistent conditions are scheduled for appointments at regular intervals in order to enable care providers to monitor the patients' conditions at the regularly scheduled appointments… care providers will require the patients to visit regularly”, paragraphs [0032]-[0034], “The stored data 122 may include information on allergies, immunizations, measurements, conditions, tests, medications, surgeries, or procedures… The scheduling module 130 accesses a storage area containing existing patient schedules 132… an existing appointment contained within the existing schedules storage area 132”. A regularly scheduled appointment reads on a checkup under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 22, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first new date or the second new date is identified based on a prediction of when the biomarker will satisfy the threshold criteria and a current date (Brackett: Figure 4, paragraph [0007], “re-schedule a patient appointment when necessary”, paragraph [0043], “auto-reschedule an appointment based on data being remotely monitored from the patient”; Leontovich: Figure 1, paragraphs [0004]-[0005], “a method of identifying one or more favorable dates to deliver a pharmacological treatment to a patient… identifying at least one of the plurality of proposed treatment dates as a favorable date to deliver the pharmacological treatment to the patient based on the determined states of each of the biological variables on each of the plurality of proposed treatment dates”. The Examiner notes in combination the claim is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 23, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein communicating the second notification further comprises communicating the second notification to the patient (Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0033]-[0035], “determine if the patient's data is normal compared with the stored data 122… For example, it may be necessary to bump patients or revise the schedules of other patients in order to accommodate a single remotely monitored patient. In some instances, it may be necessary to page a doctor to accommodate an emergency”, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”. The Rescheduled appointments are provided to the patient via a notification).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Regarding (New) claim 24, Brackett, Anumolu, Bender and Leontovich teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, automatically generating an alert to the patient regarding a detected change in a condition of the patient associated with the comparison value Brackett: Figures 3-4, paragraph [0043], “the captured data is evaluated against a set of parameters to determine if the values are within acceptable limits. If they are, then the patient's appointment is automatically cancelled and rescheduled for the following month or other appropriate time frame. Once rescheduled, a notification is sent back to the patient using secure components”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 6, incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 16 December 2025 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 16 December 2025.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. The Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by the Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
Applicant's claims are eligible under the first prong of the Step 2A analysis because the features recited in the claims do not fall within any of the groupings identified in the Guidelines. For example, the claims do not recite mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. Therefore, Applicant requests that the rejections under § 101 be reversed… Applicant asserts that the alleged abstract idea is nevertheless integrated into a practical application. Regarding the second prong of the Step 2A inquiry, Applicant submits that the currently pending claims are directed to an improvement in technology. Therefore, Applicant requests that the rejections under § 101 should be reversed… Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea and are therefore eligible subject matter under Section 101. For at least this additional reason, Applicant respectfully requests reversal of these rejections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claims are directed toward organization of schedules between human users (i.e., patients and healthcare providers), via interaction with generic computer components, which as stated in as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. The claims are directed to the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping” of abstract ideas.
With respect to providing a practical application and/or significantly more, Applicant does not argue any portions of their specification for recitations of technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology, and instead argues a generic non-descriptive phrase of providing “an improvement in technology”, with no details on what this alleged improvement is or what technical problems are being solved, at best Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0002]-[0004], describes addressing problems of patient and provider time management, which is not a technical problem rooted in computer hardware technology, instead the claims recite a human activity solution to perform an abstract idea using well-understood, routine and generic activity, which may improve upon the abstract idea, nevertheless an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. As none of the claimed additional elements provide a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification the argument is not persuasive and the claim is not subject matter eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12, 14-16 and 18-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. The Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by the Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant submits Brackett, Anumolu, and Leontovich, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest "after determining that the comparison value satisfies the threshold criteria, rescheduling the non-urgent scheduled appointment to a new date that is earlier than the future date, the rescheduled appointment being an advancement of the non-urgent scheduled appointment," as recited in claim 1… However, while Brackett discloses scheduling a room for a patient in case of emergency, Brackett does not teach or suggest the scheduling of the room for the patient in case of the emergency involves any rescheduling of an existing non-urgent appointment… However, while Anumolu teaches routing healthcare workers to patients, Anumolu is silent with respect to patients going to medical appointments. Additionally, as noted above with respect to Brackett, because an emergency is not scheduled, nor a scheduled appointment, nor a rescheduled appointment to an earlier time.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, the amended limitations are taught by the combination of Anumolu within Brackett, in particular, both Brackett and Anumolu are directed toward repeating non-urgent appointment scheduling between patients and healthcare providers (see above but at least Bracket: paragraph [0004], Anumolu: paragraph [0022]), Brackett further teaches adjustment of schedules based on a comparison of monitored parameters to a threshold, in which the scheduled appointment is adjusted to a different date (see above but a least paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0033]-[0035]), while Brackett explicitly shows moving a scheduled non-urgent appointment to a later date, Brackett may only discusses adjustment of date to an earlier time in the case of an emergency (i.e., a threshold criteria), nevertheless, Anumolu explicitly teaches that a scheduled appointment can be moved to an earlier date based on a threshold criteria (see above but at least Anumolu: paragraphs [0022] and [0041]), therefore it is the combination of Anumolu within Brackett which teaches the argued limitation, and would be prima facie obvious to include with the motivation of “improve the quality of care” (Anumolu: paragraph [0004]). Therefore, in combination Anumolu and Brackett teach what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In addition, the Examiner respectfully notes that the cited reference was never applied as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102 against the pending claims. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that the issue at hand is not whether the applied prior art specifically teaches the claimed features, per se, but rather, whether or not the prior art, when taken in combination with the knowledge of average skill in the art, would put the artisan in possession of these features. Regarding this issue, it is well established that references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The issue of obviousness is not determined by what the references expressly state but by what they would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, as supported by decisions in In re DeLisle 406 Fed 1326, 160 USPQ 806; In re Kell, Terry and Davies 208 USPQ 871; and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ 2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Further, it was determined in In re Lamberti et al, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA) that:
(i) obviousness does not require absolute predictability;
(ii) non-preferred embodiments of prior art must also be considered; and
(iii) the question is not express teaching of references, but what they would suggest.
According to In re Jacoby, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962), the skilled artisan is presumed to know something more about the art than only what is disclosed in the applied references. In In re Bode, 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA 1977), every reference relies to some extent on knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that which is disclosed therein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights