DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received on 11/12/2025.
Claims 2, 10, 11, 14-16, and 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are amended. Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered; however, they are not persuasive, and an updated 35 USC §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Applicant maintains the position that the claims are directed to patentable subject matter because they practically apply the alleged judicial exception through an “other meaningful limitation.” By the present document, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 12, and 20 to include the limitations of dependent claims 10-11, and 15-16, such that the independent claims primarily recite the limitation “double-book an appointment within the time interval based on the double book opportunity.” The MPEP provides that one consideration for determining whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the additional elements are “Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Applicant respectfully submits that by including the limitation “double-book an appointment within the time interval based on the double book opportunity,” the claims provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the amended limitation of “” is a step that can be performed using a pen and paper which make the limitation which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The examiner notes “double-book an appointment within the time interval based on the double book opportunity”, i.e., scheduling of an appointment, recites methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The Examiner next note if considered under step 2A, the limitation amounts to post-solution activity.
Applicant next argues that The Office states that the "automatically operating the sorting gate" limitation added "a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception" (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern) to operate the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis." USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 46, Claim 3. This is analogous to the present claims, which include an application step of the alleged abstract idea by requiring "double- book[ing] an appointment within the time interval based on the double book opportunity." According to the Office, the pending claims are allegedly directed to the abstract idea of "predicting double-booking appointments based on no-show probability of patients." However, the claims provide a meaningful limitation that practically applies the alleged abstract idea of "predicting double-booking appointments based on a no-show probability of patients" by determining a time interval within a schedule that is best suited for a double-booking opportunity and actually double booking an appointment during that time- interval based on the double-booking opportunity. Applicant respectfully maintains that this provides a meaningful limitation of just "predicting double-booking appointments based on a no-show probability of patients" that practically applies the alleged abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the step of "automatically operating the sorting gate", Example 46 claim 3, does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern) to operate the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis. Additionally, the first and third embodiments (which automatically separate animals exhibiting aberrant behavior from the herd by routing them into a holding pen) also avoid the need for the farmer to manually separate each animal exhibiting aberrant behavior from the herd, and thus permit the farmer to devote more time to the care and treatment (if needed) of the separated animals. Thus, under any of the three embodiments, step goes beyond merely automating the abstract ideas and instead actually uses the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action by operating the gate and routing the animals in a particular way. This is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall live. Unlike Example 36, applicant’s claims is directed to predicting double-booking appointments based on no-show probability of patients and double-booking a patient based on analysis, which is an abstract concept which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims further recite methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further recite methods of mathematical concepts such as applying a logistic regression learning technique, which falls into the “mathematical concept” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The examiner notes logistic regression learning technique is mathematical calculation. Because the recited “training” is recited at high level that limitation falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. The Examiner next note if considered under step 2A, the limitation amounts to post-solution activity.
Applicant next assets that Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 12 and 20 such that they recite, inter alia, "extracting, at a Managed File Transfer (MFT) module, a set of attributes predictive of a probability that one or more of a plurality of appointment time slots associated with a time interval will be classified as a no-show, wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster." Primarily, it is axiomatic that the recited limitation of an "MFT module" is not directed to a mental process, method of organizing human behavior, or a mathematical concept. Similarly, the recited limitation of "wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster" is not directed to any mental process, as the human brain is not equipped to organize extracted attribute data as a data processing cluster, with or without the use of a pen and paper. It is also axiomatic that the limitation "wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster" is not directed to any of the enumerated categories within certain methods of organizing human behavior or to a mathematical concept. As such, the limitations "MFT module" and "wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster" is not directed" are additional elements not directed to an abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that “extracting a set of attributes predictive of a probability that one or more of a plurality of appointment time slots associated with a time interval will be classified as a no-show, wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster” is considered part of the abstract idea. In accordance to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Next the examiner notes that “Managed File Transfer (MFT) module” is considered an additional element and further evaluated under step 2A prong II and step 2B. The examiner further notes even if the extraction of data is considered additional element, the examiner notes the limitation is recited at high level of generality. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0019] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Applicant argues that the presently claimed systems and methods improve upon conventional techniques for identifying and addressing appointment no-shows, which the specification states "conventional technology, automated reminder systems can be scaled and distributed to patients for appointment reminders, regardless of their predisposition to no-showing. However, such general automated reminder systems lack sufficient technical features for identifying no-shows despite an appointment." Par. [0004]. The present claims improve upon the conventional systems by implementing a double- booking platform where "a high-risk slot or schedule is double-booked to intentionally book an additional patient on an already-full schedule and filled appointments with the expectation that one of those scheduled patients will be a no-show" by "quantif[ying] how likely it would be to have at least one patient not arrive" for a particular time slot, and identifying those time slots as high-risk and targeting them for potential double-booking. Par. [0024] Therefore, the claims provide an improvement to the field of property vulnerability evaluation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examine notes that Applicant's claims have not been shown to improvement, but instead merely utilize a general-purpose computer to collect information, analyze the information, and display results of the analysis, though without producing any meaningful change or improvement to a GUI, to the computer, or to any technology or technical process. Applicant's Specification describes generic and/or conventional off-the-shelf computing devices for implementing the invention (See, e.g., Fig. 10 and paragraph [0021]: “The predictive double-booking system 200, further described herein, may be implemented by one or more processors, processing elements, or devices such as a server, computing device, laptop, desktop computer, and the like; or may be implemented via a cloud or other such hosting environments.”), and implementing a double- booking platform where "a high-risk slot or schedule is double-booked to intentionally book an additional patient on an already-full schedule and filled appointments with the expectation that one of those scheduled patients will be a no-show “does not elevate the claims beyond utilizing a general purpose computer. Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0019] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, an updated 35 USC §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered; they overcome 35 USC §103 rejection. In response to applicant’s amendments and arguments, the 35 USC §103 rejection is withdrawn.
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, 3-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1 and 3-9), the device (claim 12-13 and 17-19), and the tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 20) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of predicting double-booking appointments based on no-show probability of patients by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims further recite methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further recite methods of mathematical concepts such as applying a logistic regression learning technique, which is claimed broadly and falls into the “mathematical concept” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 20, are: A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to: extract, at a Managed File Transfer (MFT) module, a set of attributes predictive of a probability that at least one of a plurality of appointment time slots of a time interval will be classified as a no-show, wherein the extracted set of attributes are organized as a data processing cluster; generate a plurality of risk scores defining individual slot risks including an individual slot risk for each of the plurality of appointment time slots within the data processing cluster, wherein a probability that each of the plurality of appointment time slots will be classified as non-show is modeled by applying a logistic regression learning technique based on risk factors associated with the set of attributes; generate a cumulative no-show risk that at least one patient will no-show and that at least one appointment time slot across the time interval will be classified as a no-show by aggregation of the plurality of risk scores to partial-day level corresponding to the time interval using binomial probability logic; determine a cumulative no-show risk across the time interval based on a plurality of individual slot risks respectively associated with each appointment time slot of a plurality of appointment time slots; compare the cumulative no-show risk for the time interval with a predetermined threshold value; identify a double book opportunity for the time interval based on a comparison between the cumulative no-show risk and the predetermined threshold value; generate the double booking opportunity via a scheduling report for the time interval based on at least one of the plurality of risk scores for the time interval; and double-book an appointment within the time interval based on the double book opportunity. Claims 1 and 12 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 20, and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a device, extract, at a Managed File Transfer (MFT) module, a set of attributes predictive of a probability that at least one of a plurality of appointment time slots of a time interval will be classified as a no-show (recited at high level of generality), learning technique(recited high level of generality), one or more network interfaces to communicate over a network, a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes, and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon the instructions to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0019] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. The examiner notes the step of extracting a set of attributes is considered abstract with accordance to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The section states that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the extracting a set of attributes predictive of a probability that one or more of a plurality of appointment time slots associated with a time interval will be classified as a no-show, falls under insignificant extra-solution activity and “apply it”, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a device, extract, at a Managed File Transfer (MFT) module, a set of attributes predictive of a probability that at least one of a plurality of appointment time slots of a time interval will be classified as a no-show (recited at high level of generality), learning technique(recited high level of generality), one or more network interfaces to communicate over a network, a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes, and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor, and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon the instructions to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0019]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. With respect to Managed File Transfer module, applicant’s specification describes/discloses the module in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well (i.e., claim 4 recites storing at least one of the cumulative no-show risks and the plurality of individual slot risks in a lookup table, claim 5 recites retrieving at least one of the cumulative no-show risks and the plurality of individual slot risks from the lookup table upon report generation. The additional elements are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0019] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0019]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter ), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity, mathematical concept, and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closet prior art of record is Christopher Moses (US 2015/0242819 A1, hereinafter “Moses”), Fitih Cinnor (US 2020/0151634 A1, hereinafter “Cinnor”), Leon Cui (NPL: “Reminder Systems for Reducing No-shows in General Practices”, published 2012, hereinafter “Cui”), Anup Lakare (US 2016/0292369 A1, hereinafter “Lakare”), and Xiang Zhong (US 2016/0253462 A1, hereinafter “Zhong”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210056450 A1
Scheduling Based on Probabilistic Availability
Catalano; Pasquale A. et al.
US 20200302358 A1
Apparatus, System and Method for Predicting Medical No-Shows and for Scheduling
Mcbride; Matthew Et Al.
US 20200160986 A1
Predictive workflow analytics apparatus used in medical system has processor executing instructions to generate interactive dashboard including synchronized prediction and schedule and at least one of options to adjust schedule
Csernai E Et Al.
US 20180218337 A1
System And Methods for Analyzing and Reducing No-Show Rates
Polatov; Mikhail
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625