Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the amendments filed on June 24, 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 9, and 17 were amended. Claims 1-24 have been examined in light of the corresponding amendments and have been rejected. Such claims are currently pending in the application.
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 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-24 are directed to a method and systems, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a method for establishing communication sessions between patients and healthcare providers, comprising: receiving a plurality of consultation requests, each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria; identifying each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests, wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests; generating a distinct [queue] for each unique combination of consultation criteria; assigning each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to the [queue] with matching consultation criteria; comparing the unique combination of consultation criteria of each [queue] with a profile for each provider stored; assigning each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding [queue], wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more [queues]; sorting the consultation requests for each [queue] according to a consultation priority scheme; and establishing communication session between a patient having a highest priority consultation request within each [queue] and a first available provider assigned to the corresponding [queue].
Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, receive a plurality of consultation requests, each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria; identify each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests, wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests; generate a distinct [queue] for each unique combination of consultation criteria; assign each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to a [queue] with matching consultation criteria; compare the unique combination of consultation criteria of each [queue] with a profile for each provider; assign each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding [queue], wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more [queues]; sort the consultation requests for each [queue] according to a consultation priority scheme; and establish a communication session between a patient having a highest priority consultation request within each [queue] and a first available provider assigned to the corresponding [queue].
Independent Claim 17 recites, in part, receive a plurality of consultation requests each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria; identify each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests, wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests; generate a distinct [queue] for each unique combination of consultation criteria; assign each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to the [queue] with matching consultation criteria; compare the unique combination of consultation criteria of each [queue] with a profile for each provider; assign each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding [queue], wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more [queues]; sort the consultation requests for each virtual waiting room according to a consultation priority scheme; and establish a communication session between a patient having a highest priority consultation request within each [queue] and a first available provider assigned to the corresponding [queue].
The recited limitations, as drafted, are directed to an abstract idea. Per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims perform a rules-based protocol to assign a plurality of patients to various providers based on the characteristics of said patient and provider. This amounts to the managing of personal behavior or interactions between people because patients are directed to waiting rooms by the assignment protocol and their interactions between provided are managed via allocating them to specific providers according to the underlying rules of the assignment protocol. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Dependent Claims 2, 10, and 20 recite, in part, wherein a provider is an available provider until the provider fails to accept a predetermined number of video calls within a predetermined period of time.
Dependent Claims 4, 12, and 22 recite wherein the consultation priority scheme is based on one or more of the following: severity; wait time; language preference; clinical specialty preference; provider licensure; provider loyalty status.
Dependent Claims 5, 13, and 23 recite associating a first consultation priority scheme with a first [queue] and a second consultation priority scheme with a second [queue], wherein the first and second consultation priority schemes are different.
Dependent Claims 6 and 14 recite, in part, further comprising: sorting the providers assigned to a [queue] in accordance with a provider priority scheme; and establishing a communication session between a patient having the highest priority consultation request within the [queue] and a highest priority provider assigned to the [queue].
Dependent Claims 7 and 15 recite, in part, provides an alert when a condition is met, wherein the condition is a function of one or more of the following: a number of providers assigned to a [queue]; a number of consultation requests assigned to a [queue]; a rate of new consultation requests added to a [queue]; and a rate of consultations in the [queue] being completed.
Dependent Claim 18 recites wherein the condition is a function of one or more of the following: a number of providers assigned to a [queue]; a number of consultation requests assigned to a [queue]; and a rate of new consultation requests added to a [queue].
Dependent Claim 24 recites, in part, sort the providers assigned to a waiting room in accordance with a provider priority scheme and establish a communication session between associated with the highest priority consultation request and the highest priority provider assigned to the [queue].
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claims and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the performance of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and/or the application of a virtual technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claims are abstract but for the recitation of the additional elements including “at a/the server,” (Claim 1) “within the server,” (Claim 1), “a/the matching server” (Claims 9 and 17) “via a/the network,” (Claims 1, 9, and 17) “from/with a plurality of patient devices,” (Claims 1, 9, and 17) “a/the patient device,” (Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 24) “using a/the processor,” (Claims 1, 9, and 17) “stored in a provider database,” (Claims 1, 9, and 17) “each provider having a respective provider device” (Claims 1, 9, and 17) “a provider device associated with,” (Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 24) “from a plurality of provider devices,” (Claims 9 and 17) “establish[ing] an electronic communication session between,” (Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 24) “until an application running on the provider device is stopped” (Claims 2, 10, and 20) “wherein the electronic communication session is initiated without requiring the provider to request a consultation,” (Claims 3, 11, and 21) “[at] a/the management terminal,” (Claims 7, 15, and 17) “in communication with a matching terminal,” (Claims 7 and 15) and “wherein the management terminal is configured to display a graphical user interface that provides an alert when a condition is met.” (Claim 17).
The above-identified additional elements are recited in the limitations, described in the Specification, and represented in the Drawings in such a way that they can be reasonably construed to be generic computer or technological components implemented on or in conjunction with a general purpose computer. Therefore, the recitation of such technology amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose technology (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014)).
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17-18, and 23-24 recite a “virtual waiting room.” The Specification does not explicitly define the features of the virtual waiting room, and, accordingly, Examiner is interpreting the virtual waiting room to merely be a waiting room implemented in a virtual environment. Therefore, the recitation of a/the virtual waiting room constitutes the general linking of the aforementioned abstract idea to the technological environment of virtual spaces and waiting queues (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 7, 15, and 17 recite display[ing] a graphical user interface that provides an alert when a condition is met. Claims 8, 16, and 19 further recite that said graphical user interface display includes a list of potential providers whose profiles satisfy the unique consultation criteria associated with the virtual waiting room. The displaying of a notification that a condition has been met, regarding the number of expediency with which the assignment of patients and providers to virtual waiting rooms is performed, and/or the displaying of a list of potential providers, is nominally related or tangential to the actual act(s) of matching providers and patients to virtual waiting rooms based on shared criteria, and, thus, amounts to insignificant pre-/or post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) – insignificant pre-/post-solution activity). Therefore, the additional element is not a practical application of the established abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, the performance of extra-solution activity, or the general linking of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment.
The elements identified to constitute the use of generic computer or technological components to implement the abstract idea are recited only as a tool for performing the steps of the abstract idea. These additional elements, therefore, only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a general purpose computer and are, thus, insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see: MPEP § 2106.05(f) for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17-18, and 23-24 recite a “virtual waiting room.” The recitation of a virtual waiting room merely invokes a broad technological environment that is widely known, without any significant difference. For additional support, a showing can be made that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, by citing multiple prior publications that teach or disclose the limitation (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)). In light of Ibarrola et al. (US 2020/0398062), hereinafter Ibarrola, which discloses a virtual waiting room for patients in paragraph 68, and Schoenberg (US 2014/0201665), hereinafter Schoenberg, which discloses a virtual waiting room for assigning patients in a queue in paragraph 46, the limitation of a virtual waiting room is demonstrably well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Therefore, it cannot rise to significantly more than the established abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Each such additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the Specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the Specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the Specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in. III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 7, 15, and 17 recite display[ing] a graphical user interface that provides an alert when a condition is met. The displaying of a notification that a condition has been met, regarding the number of expediency with which the assignment of patients and providers to virtual waiting rooms is performed, is nominally related or tangential to the actual act(s) of matching providers and patients to virtual waiting rooms based on shared criteria, and, thus, amounts to insignificant pre-/or post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) – insignificant pre-/post-solution activity). A showing can be made that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, by citing multiple prior publications that teach or disclose the limitation (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)). In light of Zhu et al. (US 2019/0230215), hereinafter Zhu, which teaches the displaying of a notification by a graphical user interface once a condition is met; and Vasudevarao et al. (US 2012/0066604), hereinafter Vasudevarao, which teaches in paragraph 74 the display of an alarm on a graphical user interface when the alarm conditions are met.
Claims 8, 16, and 19 further recite that said graphical user interface display includes a list of potential providers whose profiles satisfy the unique consultation criteria associated with the virtual waiting room. The displaying of a list of potential providers by a graphical user interface is nominally related or tangential to the actual act(s) of matching providers and patients to virtual waiting rooms based on shared criteria, and, thus, amounts to insignificant pre-/or post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) – insignificant pre-/post-solution activity). A showing can be made that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, by citing multiple prior publications that teach or disclose the limitation (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)). In light of Nolte et al. (US 2012/0253836), hereinafter Nolte, which teaches in paragraphs 44 and 58 the displaying of a list of clinicians alongside a list of patients for matching of services to patient needs; and Schoenberg (US 2014/0201665), hereinafter Schoenberg, which teaches in paragraphs 8 and 85 displaying a list of providers that match a patient’s needs on a graphical user interface.
Accordingly, the above-identified additional elements cannot be construed to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: No).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg (US 20140201665), hereinafter Schoenberg in view of Schoenberg (US 20140108022), hereinafter Schoenberg ‘022.
As per Claim 1, Schoenberg teaches a method for establishing electronic communication sessions between patients and healthcare providers (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 26-29, is met by the establishment of communication between client devices of a patient and potential provider), comprising: receiving, at a server via a network, a plurality of consultation requests from a plurality of patient devices (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 24, 39, 59, and 67, is met by the processing of multiple patient requests by the brokerage system), each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, is met by the inclusion of patient information such identification, health plan information, plan sponsor, etc., in the request); identifying, using a processor, each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests received at the server (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39 and 57, is met by the determination of a provider based on the unique characteristics of a patient), wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests (see: Schoenberg, fig. 5A, is met by multiple patients being assigned to the queue of a single provider, meaning that there are fewer unique combinations of criteria than requests (i.e., patients)); generating, within the server, a distinct virtual waiting room for each unique combination of consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58; figs. 5A-5B and 8, is met by each provider having their own designated queues and sub-queues where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes and current states); assigning, within the server, each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to the virtual waiting room with matching consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58, is met by each provider having their own designated queue where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes); comparing, using the processor, the unique combination of consultation criteria of each virtual waiting room with a profile for each provider stored in a provider database, each provider having a respective provider device (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39, 78, 85, and 90, is met by the selection of providers for a patient based on attribute matching); assigning each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding virtual waiting room within the server (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 90, is met by the sending of consumers/users to a provider queue whose attribute sufficiently match their own); sorting, using the processor, the consultation requests for each virtual waiting room according to a consultation priority scheme (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-61, is met by the priority designations given to patient requests in a queue); and establishing, via the network, an electronic communication session between a patient device associated having a highest priority consultation request within each virtual waiting room and a provider device associated with a first available provider assigned to the corresponding virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 23-29, is met by the establishment of as consultation via client devices between a provider and patient, in which the priority scheme is employed).
However, Schoenberg fails to explicitly disclose the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms.
Schoenberg ‘022 discloses a system for connecting providers with patients who are request a consultation with a provider wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms ([0048-0049] discloses a provider being assigned to a plurality of sub-queues (i.e. two or more virtual waiting rooms) corresponding to the availability statuses of the provider).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the system functionalities of the graphical user display of Schoenberg to include the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms, as taught by Schoenberg ‘022, with the motivation of effectively manage the workloads of the physicians and ensure patients receive consultations in a timely fashion.
As per Claim 9, Schoenberg teaches a system for establishing electronic communication sessions between patients and healthcare providers (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 4 and 85, is met by a system for connecting users to providers for virtual consultations, in which the provider can be a doctor), the system comprising: a matching server in communication with a plurality of patient devices and a plurality of provider devices (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 24-25 and 29, is met by the computerized system that receives requests from client devices of a user and parses the request to match them with an appropriate provider device), the matching server configured to perform the following: receive, via a network, a plurality of consultation requests from a plurality of patient devices (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 24, 39, 59, and 67, is met by the processing of multiple patient requests by the brokerage system), each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, is met by the inclusion of patient information such identification, health plan information, plan sponsor, etc., in the request); identify, using a processor, each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39 and 57, is met by the determination of a provider based on the unique characteristics of a patient), wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 92; fig. 5A, is met by multiple patients being assigned to the queue of a single provider, meaning that there are fewer unique combinations of criteria than requests (i.e., patients)); generate a distinct virtual waiting room for each unique combination of consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58; figs. 5A-5B and 8, is met by each provider having their own designated queues and sub-queues where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes and current states); assign each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to the virtual waiting room with matching consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58, is met by each provider having their own designated queue where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes); compare, using the processor, the unique combination of consultation criteria of each virtual waiting room with a profile for each provider stored in a provider database, each provider having a respective provider device (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39, 78, 85, and 90, is met by the selection of providers for a patient based on attribute matching); assign each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 90, is met by the sending of consumers/users to a provider queue whose attribute sufficiently match their own); sort, using the processor, the consultation requests for each virtual waiting room according to a consultation priority scheme (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-61, is met by the priority designations given to patient requests in a queue); and establish, via the network, an electronic communication session between a patient device associated having a highest priority consultation request within each virtual waiting room and a provider device associated with a first available provider assigned to the corresponding virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 23-29, is met by the establishment of as consultation via client devices between a provider and patient, in which the priority scheme is employed).
However, Schoenberg fails to explicitly disclose the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms.
Schoenberg ‘022 discloses a system for connecting providers with patients who are request a consultation with a provider wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms ([0048-0049] discloses a provider being assigned to a plurality of sub-queues (i.e. two or more virtual waiting rooms) corresponding to the availability statuses of the provider).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the system functionalities of the graphical user display of Schoenberg to include the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms, as taught by Schoenberg ‘022, with the motivation of effectively manage the workloads of the physicians and ensure patients receive consultations in a timely fashion.
As per Claims 2 and 10, Schoenberg teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, respectively. Schoenberg further teaches wherein a provider is an available provider until an application running on the provider device is stopped or the provider fails to accept a predetermined number of video calls within a predetermined period of time (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 50-51 and 81-82, is met by the “not available” status being attributed to a provider when they are not logged in to the server, which is tantamount to not having an application running).
As per Claims 3 and 11, Schoenberg teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, respectively. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the electronic communication session is initiated without requiring the provider to request a consultation (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 41-44, is met by the establishment of a communication session requiring only a patient request and a provider accepting the “next patient” request).
As per Claims 4 and 12, Schoenberg teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, respectively. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the consultation priority scheme is based on one or more of the following: severity; wait time; language preference; clinical specialty preference; provider licensure; provider loyalty status (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-60, is met by the priority designation being assigned optionally based on severity of a patient condition or “oldest in the queue”).
As per Claims 6 and 14, Schoenberg teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, respectively. Schoenberg further teaches sorting the providers assigned to a virtual waiting room in accordance with a provider priority scheme (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 62-63, is met by the creation of queues for each provider and assigning patients based on least number of entries); and establishing an electronic communication session between a patient device having the highest priority consultation request within the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 61-63, is met by the patient with the highest priority being next in line to have an appointment with a provider – oldest in or severity) and a provider device associated with a highest priority provider assigned to the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 67-68, is met by the establishment of a communication session between the provider with the best available queue and the highest priority patient via communication devices).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenberg (US 2014/0201665), hereinafter Schoenberg, in view of Schoenberg (US 20140108022), hereinafter Schoenberg ‘022, and in further view of Rai et al. (US 2020/0066397), hereinafter Rai.
As per Claims 5 and 13, the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination teaches the limitations of Claims 4 and 12, respectively. While Schoenberg further teaches a first consultation priority scheme and a second consultation priority scheme, wherein the first and second consultation priority schemes are different (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-60, is met by two priority schemes being contemplated, one based on first in, first out and the other based on triaging), Schoenberg fails to specifically teach that the two different schemes are associated with a first virtual waiting room and associated with a second virtual waiting room (see: Rai, paragraph 87, is met by the employment of different prioritization schemes for different medical units, which include different medical units), respectively, as taught by Rai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination to include different prioritization schemes for different medical units, which include different medical units, as taught by Rai, with the motivation of achieving an optimal priority assignment based on numerous patient attributes (see: Rai, paragraph 85).
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Schoenberg (US 2014/0201665), hereinafter Schoenberg, in view of Schoenberg (US 20140108022), hereinafter Schoenberg ‘022, and in further view of McCormick (US 2010/0169486), hereinafter McCormick.
As per Claims 7 and 15, the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 9, respectively. The combination fails to specifically teach the following limitation(s), which is/are taught by McCormick: displaying, at a management terminal in communication with a matching terminal, a graphical user interface that provides an alert when a condition is met, wherein the condition is a function of one or more of the following: a number of providers assigned to a virtual waiting room; a number of consultation requests assigned to a virtual waiting room; a rate of new consultation requests added to a virtual waiting room; and a rate of consultations in the virtual waiting room being completed (see: McCormick, paragraph 74, is met by the generation of an alert when the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination to include the generation of an alert when the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold, as taught by McCormick, with the motivation of indicating the possibility of decreasing the wait time for users with modifications such as increasing the maximum permitted rate. (see: McCormick, paragraph 74).
As per Claims 8 and 16, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022 and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claims 7 and 15, respectively. Schoenberg further teaches displaying a list of potential providers whose profiles satisfy the unique consultation criteria associated with the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 89, is met by the display of a list of providers on the graphical user interface).
As per Claim 17, Schoenberg teaches a system for establishing electronic communication sessions between patients and healthcare providers (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 4 and 85, is met by a system for connecting users to providers for virtual consultations, in which the provider can be a doctor), the system comprising: a management terminal in communication with a matching server in communication with a plurality of patient devices and a plurality of provider devices (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 24-25 and 29, is met by the computerized system that receives requests from client devices of a user and parses the request to match them with an appropriate provider device), the matching server configured to perform the following: receive, via a network, a plurality of consultation requests from a plurality of patient devices (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 24, 39, 59, and 67, is met by the processing of multiple patient requests by the brokerage system), each request including patient-supplied consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 39, is met by the inclusion of patient information such identification, health plan information, plan sponsor, etc., in the request); identify, using a processor, each unique combination of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39 and 57, is met by the determination of a provider based on the unique characteristics of a patient), wherein the number of unique combinations of consultation criteria among the plurality of consultation requests is fewer than the number of consultation requests in the plurality of consultation requests (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 92; fig. 5A, is met by multiple patients being assigned to the queue of a single provider, meaning that there are fewer unique combinations of criteria than requests (i.e., patients)); generate a distinct virtual waiting room for each unique combination of consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58; figs. 5A-5B and 8, is met by each provider having their own designated queues and sub-queues where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes and current states); assign each consultation request of the plurality of consultation requests to the virtual waiting room with matching consultation criteria (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 57-58, is met by each provider having their own designated queue where patients are assigned based on their unique set of attributes); compare, using the processor, the unique combination of consultation criteria of each virtual waiting room with a profile for each provider stored in a provider database, each provider having a respective provider device (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 39, 78, 85, and 90, is met by the selection of providers for a patient based on attribute matching); assign each provider whose profile satisfies a unique combination of consultation criteria to a corresponding virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 90, is met by the sending of consumers/users to a provider queue whose attribute sufficiently match their own); sort, using the processor, the consultation requests for each virtual waiting room according to a consultation priority scheme (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-61, is met by the priority designations given to patient requests in a queue); and establish, via the network, an electronic communication session between a patient device associated having a highest priority consultation request within each virtual waiting room and a provider device associated with a first available provider assigned to the corresponding virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 23-29, is met by the establishment of as consultation via client devices between a provider and patient, in which the priority scheme is employed).
However, Schoenberg fails to explicitly disclose the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms.
Schoenberg ‘022 discloses a system for connecting providers with patients who are request a consultation with a provider wherein at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms ([0048-0049] discloses a provider being assigned to a plurality of sub-queues (i.e. two or more virtual waiting rooms) corresponding to the availability statuses of the provider).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the system functionalities of the graphical user display of Schoenberg to include the concept of at least one of the providers is assigned to two or more virtual waiting rooms, as taught by Schoenberg ‘022, with the motivation of effectively manage the workloads of the physicians and ensure patients receive consultations in a timely fashion.
Schoenberg also fails to specifically teach the following limitation(s), which is/are taught by McCormick: wherein the management terminal is configured to display a graphical user interface that provides an alert when a condition is met (see: McCormick, paragraph 74, is met by the generation of an alert when the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination to include the generation of an alert when the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold, as taught by McCormick, with the motivation of indicating the possibility of decreasing the wait time for users with modifications such as increasing the maximum permitted rate. (see: McCormick, paragraph 74).
As per Claim 18, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 17. McCormick further teaches wherein the condition is a function of one or more of the following: a number of providers assigned to a virtual waiting; a number of consultation requests assigned to a virtual waiting room; and a rate of new consultation requests added to a virtual waiting room (see: McCormick, paragraph 74, is met by the generation of an alert when the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the Schoenberg and Schoenberg ‘022 combination to include the number of requests present in queue exceeds a threshold, as further taught by McCormick, with the motivation of indicating the possibility of decreasing the wait time for users with modifications such as increasing the maximum permitted rate. (see: McCormick, paragraph 74).
As per Claim 19, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 18. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the graphical user interface displays a list of potential providers whose profiles satisfy the unique consultation criteria associated with the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraph 89, is met by the display of a list of providers on the graphical user interface).
As per Claim 20, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 17. Schoenberg further teaches wherein a provider is an available provider until an application running on the provider device is stopped or the provider fails to accept a predetermined number of video calls within a predetermined period of time (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 50-51 and 81-82, is met by the “not available” status being attributed to a provider when they are not logged in to the server, which is tantamount to not having an application running).
As per Claim 21, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 17. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the electronic communication session is initiated without requiring the provider to request a consultation (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 41-44, is met by the establishment of a communication session requiring only a patient request and a provider accepting the “next patient” request).
As per Claim 22, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 17. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the consultation priority scheme is based on one or more of the following: severity; wait time; language preference; clinical specialty preference; provider licensure; provider loyalty status (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-60, is met by the priority designation being assigned optionally based on severity of a patient condition or “oldest in the queue”).
As per Claim 24, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teach the limitations of Claim 17. Schoenberg further teaches wherein the matching server is configured to sort the providers assigned to a waiting room in accordance with a provider priority scheme (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 62-63, is met by the creation of queues for each provider and assigning patients based on least number of entries) and establish a communication session between a patient device associated with the highest priority consultation request within the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 61-63, is met by the patient with the highest priority being next in line to have an appointment with a provider – oldest in or severity) and a provider device associated with the highest priority provider assigned to the virtual waiting room (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 67-68, is met by the establishment of a communication session between the provider with the best available queue and the highest priority patient via communication devices).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Schoenberg (US 2014/0201665), hereinafter Schoenberg, in view of Schoenberg (US 20140108022), hereinafter Schoenberg ‘022, and in further view of McCormick (US 2010/0169486), hereinafter McCormick and Rai et al. (US 2020/0066397), hereinafter Rai.
As per Claim 23, the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination teaches the limitations of Claim 22. While Schoenberg further teaches a first consultation priority scheme and a second consultation priority scheme, wherein the first and second consultation priority schemes are different (see: Schoenberg, paragraphs 59-60, is met by two priority schemes being contemplated, one based on first in, first out and the other based on triaging), the combination fails to specifically teach that the two different schemes are associated with a first virtual waiting room and associated with a second virtual waiting room. Rai discloses two different schemes are associated with a first virtual waiting room and associated with a second virtual waiting room (see: Rai, paragraph 87, is met by the employment of different prioritization schemes for different medical units, which include different medical units).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to the Schoenberg, Schoenberg ‘022, and McCormick combination to include different prioritization schemes for different medical units, which include different medical units, as taught by Rai, with the motivation of achieving an optimal priority assignment based on numerous patient attributes (see: Rai, paragraph 85).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
In the Remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn because the claims integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees; such arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant alleges that the claim limitations, specifically the creation of distinct waiting rooms and the partitioning of the consultation request pool, represent an improvement to computers by reducing or mitigating the computational resources necessary to match patients with an appropriate provider; however this “improvement” does not change the functioning of the computer itself or impart new functions upon the computer technology. Instead, the limitations, as submitted by Applicant, “improve” the computer by allowing it to not perform its regular functions or perform these functions at a reduced rate. The computer functionality is not being improved but rather its existing functions are being utilized to a diminished degree of activity. Consequently, the reduction or mitigation in computer resources used on unreliable data is a reduction in functionality, not an improvement in functionality. Accordingly, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the computer technology, as asserted by Applicant, and, thus, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FONYA M LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5096. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00am-5:30pm; Friday 7:00am-11:00am.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
FONYA M. LONG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights