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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 1/19/2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 15, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5-14, and 17-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejection has been withdrawn.
B. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 11 of the response that “Claim 1 does not merely recite the abstract idea of "collecting feedback" or "sending notifications,” and that it “provides a practical application that is rooted in computer technology by solving the technical problem of "false triggers" in complex geographic environments, such as healthcare campuses” which “utilizes a specialized architecture-including an AI-enabled appointment reader module and a location module executing in combination-to ensure notifications are only triggered by specific, device-determined geofence transitions,” and that “[t]his technical filtering of sensor data to improve notification accuracy is a non-conventional use of mobile hardware, moving the claims beyond a mere abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner initially notes that Applicant’s assertions regarding an “AI-enabled appointment reader” and “technical filtering of sensor data to improve notification accuracy” lack nexus with the language of the claims themselves. While paragraph 26 provides a general statement that the appointment reader module “includes an artificial intelligence system” this element is not recited within the claims. Similarly, there is no recitation of “technical filtering of sensor data” within the claims. Claim 1 recites determining that the mobile device associated with the patient has crossed or entered a geofenced area, as well as monitoring location data of the mobile device, by a location module executing on the mobile device, to detect that the mobile device has exited the geofence area. However, simply monitoring the location of a mobile device and determining whether it has entered or exited a geofenced area does not amount to “technical filtering of sensor data to improve notification accuracy” or constitute a non-conventional use of mobile hardware sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites that the modules execute in combination on the mobile device to trigger notifications based on device-determined geofence entry and exit events, citing to the decisions in Thales Visionix and Packet Intelligence. However, as addressed below in Step 2A Prong 2, the recitation that the appointment reader module and location module “execute in combination” does not amount to more than the use of the respective software modules performing their respective functions. Claim 1 does not further recite any details regarding how “execut[ing] in combination” further limits the functions being performed by the modules beyond using the respective types of data as already recited in the claim, and the disclosure likewise does not provide any specific description of the modules executing in combination. Monitoring the location of a mobile device using a hardware or software module is not analogous to the specific sensor and data processing arrangement in Thales Visionix. Examiner notes that it is not clear which decision is being cited by Applicant’s reference to “Packet Intelligence” given that no specific citation is provided. Regardless, the limitations of the claims and contents of the disclosure do not reflect “real-time, device-level processing” amounting to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Merely using a mobile device to performing functions such as monitoring a location is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the second and third notifications being “based on real-time geofence detection rather than being arbitrary,” and “integrated with the mobile device's sensors and internal modules to perform a non-conventional, practical application” are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites in relevant part “prior to determining that the time and date of the scheduled appointment has been reached and the mobile device associated with the patient has crossed or entered the geofence area, outputting a second notification to the mobile device,” and “receiving, from the mobile device of the patient, a response indicating that the patient wants the first notification outputted on their mobile device, and outputting a third notification that asks the patient what the nature of the scheduled appointment is and who it is with.” Outputting a notification at a time prior to an appointment and entry of the device into a geofenced area does not constitute an “integrat[ion] with the mobile device's sensors and internal modules to perform a non-conventional, practical application.”
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 15 is moot due to cancelation of the claim.
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, 5-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 5-13 are drawn to a method, while claims 14 and 17-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
determining information related to a scheduled appointment of a patient to a healthcare services facility, wherein the information related to the scheduled appointment to the healthcare services facility includes the time and date and location of the scheduled appointment;
determining that the time and date of the scheduled appointment has been reached and the patient has crossed or entered an area corresponding to the location of the healthcare services facility for the scheduled appointment;
sending, in response to detecting that the patient has exited the area after the scheduled appointment, a first notification to the patient, wherein the first notification requests feedback from the patient about the scheduled appointment visit of the patient with the healthcare services facility;
prior to determining that the time and date of the scheduled appointment has been reached and the patient has crossed or entered the area, outputting a second notification to the patient, wherein the second notification asks the patient if the patient wants a first notification outputted to them;
receiving, from the patient, a response indicating that the patient wants the first notification, and outputting a third notification that asks the patient what the nature of the scheduled appointment is and who it is with;
monitoring location data of the patient to detect that the patient has exited the area after the scheduled appointment; and
outputting the first notification to the patient when the location data of the patient is determined to be outside of the area, wherein the notifications are output based on the determined entry and exit events associated with the scheduled appointment.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and therefore fall within the scope of an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of communicating with a patient by a) querying and receiving a response from a patient about whether they are willing to provide feedback, and then b) using scheduling information for a patient appointment, a determination that a patient has arrived at a facility associated with the appointment, and a determination that the patient has left the facility after their appointment to send a request for feedback after the patient has left. This constitutes a form of managing the patient’s behavior via provision of feedback or in the form of managing an interaction between the patient and an individual reaching out to the patient for the feedback.
Independent claim 14 recites similar limitations and also recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a) at least one computer processor recited as performing the subsequent data processing functions, b) a mobile device of the patient used to execute a location module and an appointment reader module, receive or store the notification in memory, and output the notification, c) the area corresponding to the location of the healthcare services facility being a “geofenced” area, d) the appointment reader module executing on the mobile device and recited as used to determine the information related to the scheduled appointment, e) the location module executing on the mobile device and recited as used to detect whether the patient has exited the geofence area, and f) the appointment reader module and the location module “execut[ing] in combination” to perform the function of “caus[ing] the notifications to be output based on the device-determined geofence entry and exit events.”
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium used to store executable instructions, b) one or more processors of a computing system used to perform the subsequent data processing functions, c) a mobile device of the patient used to execute a location module and an appointment reader module, receive or store the notification in memory, and output the notification, d) the area corresponding to the location of the healthcare services facility being a “geofenced” area, e) the appointment reader module executing on the mobile device and recited as used to determine the information related to the scheduled appointment, f) the location module executing on the mobile device and recited as used to detect whether the patient has exited the geofence area, and g) the appointment reader module and the location module “execut[ing] in combination” to perform the function of “caus[ing] the notifications to be output based on the device-determined geofence entry and exit events.”
Paragraphs 22 and 36 of Applicant’s specification as originally filed describe one or more processors as part of a computer system and mobile device and as including CPUs as a single processing unit or one or more distributed processing units. The at least one computer processor and one or more processors of a computing system are construed accordingly as encompassing generic computer processing devices.
Paragraph 4 reflects the language of claim 14 in describing a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Paragraphs 22 and 45 further describe the processors executing instructions stored on memory devices or computer readable media. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is construed accordingly as encompassing a generic computer storage device.
Paragraph 35 states that “the mobile device 14 may be a cell phone, smart phone, smart watch, tablet, PDA, laptop, notebook or other suitable portable or mobile device.” The mobile device is construed accordingly as encompassing a generic mobile computing device.
Paragraph 25 describes an appointment reader module, and states that “the term "module" may refer to a hardware based module, software based module or a module may be a combination of hardware and software resources,” where “hardware based modules may include self-contained components such as chipsets, specialized circuitry and one or more memory devices” and “a software-based module may be part of a program code or linked to program code containing specific programmed instructions loaded in a memory device.” Paragraph 34 similarly specifies that “[t]he location module 34 may be comprised of hardware and/or software capable of utilizing a positioning system to pinpoint the current location of the client device 14 and/or previously stored locations of the client device 14 that may be saved in a memory device 36 or data store 30,” and lists a plurality of different positioning mechanisms including GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular networks, NFC, and RFID beacons. The appointment reader module is construed accordingly as encompassing generic processing devices or software operating on a computer. The location module is likewise construed accordingly as encompassing generic processing devices or software operating on a computer.
With respect to the recitation of the appointment reader module and the location module “execut[ing] in combination,” no specific disclosure is provided beyond the above descriptions of the appointment reader module and the location module, their respective functions, and their execution on a mobile device. This element is therefore construed as encompassed by software or hardware of the mobile device being used to perform the respective functions.
Paragraph 28 states that “the mapping module 24 may create one or more geofenced areas such as one geofenced area 26 (Fig. 4) associated with a healthcare services facility 31 based on data in the system,” while paragraph 30 describes geofence configuration data as defining information such as the location, size or boundary limit coordinates or radius, and other defined geographic boundary areas. The “geofenced” area is therefore construed as encompassing a defined geographic area.
The above elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. Each of the processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, appointment reader and location modules, and mobile device associated with the patient are recited at a high level of generality as implementing respective data processing, storage, transmission, and input/output functions, and are disclosed broadly as encompassing generic forms of computing elements. The geofence is likewise recited at a high level of generality as an area corresponding to a healthcare facility and disclosed broadly as an area defined by stored coordinates and geometric attributes. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 1 and 14 further recite the additional element of retrieving the first notification from the mobile device. However, this element only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering for use in performing the abstract idea.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
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:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 14 only recite the at least one computer processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors of a computing system, appointment reader module, location module, mobile device, and the “geofenced” area as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 1 and 14 further recite the additional element of retrieving the first notification from the mobile device. As noted above however, this element only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering for use in performing the abstract idea.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the above function of retrieving the first notification amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity in the form of storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claim 5 recites performing a query on stored information based on who the scheduled appointment is with. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 5 further recites the additional element of a database on which the query is performed.
Paragraphs 27 and 51 describe a database as being queried based on an entity or person provided by a patient. However, no further disclosure of the structure of the database is provided beyond its function of storing the queried information. The database is construed as encompassing a generic computer database.
The recited database amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The database is recited at a high level of generality as being queried, and is disclosed broadly as a database containing information which is queried. This element is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites outputting an offer help message to the patient asking the patient if the patient wants help. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 6 further recites the additional element of the mobile device as outputting the offer help message.
As cited above, paragraph 35 states that “the mobile device 14 may be a cell phone, smart phone, smart watch, tablet, PDA, laptop, notebook or other suitable portable or mobile device.” The mobile device is construed accordingly as encompassing a generic mobile computing device.
The recited mobile device amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The mobile device associated with the patient is recited at a high level of generality as outputting the help message to the patient and is disclosed broadly as encompassing generic forms of mobile computing devices. This element is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites receiving a response from the patient that the patient would like to talk to a healthcare professional, sending a fourth notification that has information about a healthcare professional for the patient to talk to and an invitation or suggestion to initiate a video or audio call to the healthcare professional. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of a) the mobile device as providing the response from the patient, and b) a button displayed on a display of the mobile device to be pressed to initiate the video or audio call to the healthcare professional.
As cited above, paragraph 35 states that “the mobile device 14 may be a cell phone, smart phone, smart watch, tablet, PDA, laptop, notebook or other suitable portable or mobile device.” The mobile device is construed accordingly as encompassing a generic mobile computing device.’
Paragraph 53 and Figure 9 describe a message button displayed on a display of the mobile device, stating “the message 48 may provide the patient an invitation or suggestion to initiate a video or audio call to a qualified person that can help the patient by pressing the message button that will then promptly place the audio or video call to the qualified healthcare professional.” The button is therefore construed as encompassing a generic selectable user interface button. Examiner notes that the claim does not positively recite the function of initiating a video or audio call.
The above elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The mobile device associated with the patient is recited at a high level of generality as outputting the message to the patient and is disclosed broadly as encompassing generic forms of mobile computing devices. The button is likewise recited at a high level of generality as “to be pressed” in order to initiate the video or audio call, and is disclosed broadly as a button interface element. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 17 recite determining if there are interrupt conditions that prevent one of or any combination of sending the first notification to the patient or outputting the first notification to the patient when the location data of the patient is determined to be outside of the area. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 8 and 17 further recite the additional elements of a) the mobile device associated with the patient as outputting the notification to the user, providing the first notification for retrieval, and tracking the location of the user, b) the area being a geofence area, and c) retrieving the first notification from the mobile device.
As cited above, paragraph 35 states that “the mobile device 14 may be a cell phone, smart phone, smart watch, tablet, PDA, laptop, notebook or other suitable portable or mobile device.” The mobile device is construed accordingly as encompassing a generic mobile computing device.
Likewise, paragraph 28 states that “the mapping module 24 may create one or more geofenced areas such as one geofenced area 26 (Fig. 4) associated with a healthcare services facility 31 based on data in the system,” while paragraph 30 describes geofence configuration data as defining information such as the location, size or boundary limit coordinates or radius, and other defined geographic boundary areas. The “geofenced” area is therefore construed as encompassing a defined geographic area.
The above elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The mobile device associated with the patient is recited at a high level of generality as implementing data processing functions such as location monitoring and outputting information to the user, and is disclosed broadly as encompassing generic forms of mobile computing devices. The geofence is likewise recited at a high level of generality as an area corresponding to a healthcare facility and disclosed broadly as an area defined by stored coordinates and geometric attributes.
With respect to the additional element of retrieving the first notification from the mobile device, as noted above this element only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering for use in performing the abstract idea.
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the above function of retrieving the first notification amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity in the form of storing and retrieving information in memory.
These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 18 recite determining that this is not an initial appointment of the patient of a healthcare professional at the healthcare services facility, wherein the interrupt condition is that the scheduled appointment is not an initial appointment of the patient of the healthcare professional at the healthcare services facility. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 10 and 19 recite determining that the patient has requested not to be notified to provide feedback of the scheduled appointment, wherein the interrupt condition is that that patient has requested not to be notified to provide feedback of the scheduled appointment. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 11 recites wherein the information related to the scheduled appointment to the healthcare services facility includes the medical provider for the scheduled appointment. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 12 recites wherein the information related to the scheduled appointment to the healthcare services facility includes the nature of the scheduled appointment. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 13 and 20 recite authenticating that the patient is authorized to receive the first notification. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1, 5-14, and 17-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 each recite the limitation "the mobile device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of a mobile device.
Claims 5-13 and 17-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 14 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rho (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0013097).
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 WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights