DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on October 6, 2025. This action is made final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-11 have been amended. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity and refers to the computer components which make up the claimed system. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to notify a user of their position in a line. The use of the generic computer components, including displaying the queue on a display, do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
On page 7, Applicant argues the claims provide a technical advantage in that it improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field and, therefore, integrate the claimed features into a practical application. More specifically, Applicant refers to the recitation of the machine learning model that is configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology, as the technological environment of Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Fig. 1).
Insomuch as Applicant asserts the use of the machine learning model “consistently improves the efficiency of the system itself” (see remarks page 7), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither the specification nor the claims describe a machine learning model that improves the system, itself. At best, the specification states the model improves the application’s accuracy. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant further argues the claims are analogous to example 42, and are indicative of an inventive concept. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d) sates that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology): the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information. The claimed invention then solved this problem (a technical solution) by providing a message and access to updated real-time data that has been converted to a standardized format, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Unlike Example 42 and/or the technical solution to a technical problem inquiry, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem that the claimed invention is solving. Rather, the claims are directed towards managing a queue and/or notifying a user of their placement. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are administrative problems.
Applicant further argues previously cited Heller is directed to access control to a private facility and not concerned with providers at a public location. However, the present claims do not warrant such a narrow interpretation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., public vs. private) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely recite a “medical facility” and even if the claims were amended to include a public facility, it would not be further limiting on the present claims as it merely recites an intended use and/or non-functional descriptive language as to the type of facility. Accordingly, Heller, having taught a queuing system for a medical care provider, therefore, reads upon the claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the system further comprises at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device and trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility”, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to independent claims 1 and 11, the claims recite, among other things “wherein the system further comprises at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device and trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue”. However, a review of the specification, though suggesting the use of machine learning algorithms to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the application, does not teach or suggest “at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue”. The specification generically recites an “improvement in the application’s accuracy”; however, there is no disclosure as to how that is performed much less so that the accuracy is in the real time updating of the queue. The specification is further silent as to the machine learning model being stored in the memory of the mobile device.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to resolve the 112 deficiency of their parent claims and are similarly rejected.
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 1-20 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 1-10 recite a system of managing a queue, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 11-20 recite a system for managing a queue, which is within the statutory class of a machine.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 (claim 1 being representative)
displaying, on a display of the mobile device, data corresponding to at least one local medical facility based on a location of the mobile device; displaying, on a display of the mobile device, a virtual queue of patients pending treatment at the medical facility; and updating the virtual queue in real time based on geographic movement of the mobile device and a duration of the mobile device remains at the at least one local medical facility, wherein the system further comprises at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device and trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to process and communicate data in the manner described in the abstract idea to notify a person of a status of a line. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (a memory, a processor, a display, a mobile device, virtual [data], a server, and a network —all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) a machine learning model trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility and (2) use of the model to improve the accuracy of updating the queue. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the nonexistent description of the training of the machine learning model in the disclosure, training of a machine learning model with the noted data amounts to a mathematical concept that creates data associations. As such, this training of the model is interpreted to be subsumed within the identified abstract idea and the use of the trained model provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, supra. July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, Claim 2, discussion of item (c) at Pgs. 7-9. Regarding (2), the use of the model provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (“apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f); July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, Claim 2, discussion of items (d) and (e) at Pgs. 8-9.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (a memory, a processor, a display, a mobile device, virtual [data], a server, and a network —see Specification Fig. 1, [0059]-[0066] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (1) a machine learning model trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility and (2) use of the model to improve the accuracy of updating the queue were considered to be part of the abstract idea and “apply it,” respectively. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. Regarding (1), the training of the model is considered part of the abstract idea and thus cannot provide a practical application. Regarding (2), the use of the model represented saying “apply it.” Item (2) has been revaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and does not provide “significantly more” to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates also indicates that merely adding the words “apply it” or equivalent use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2-10 and 11-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2, 8, 12, 16, 20 merely recite the displaying and/or scheduling/cancelling an appointment by user selection. Claims 3 and 4 merely recite providing a departure notification based on a starting and end point. Claims 5 and 17 merely recite the transmitting of insurance data. Claims 7 and 19 merely recite updating a user’s queue position based on their estimated arrival time from a particular mode of travel. Claim 9 merely recites removing a user from a queue when they are a preset distance from the facility. Claim 13 merely recites identifying nearby facilities. Claims 14 and 15 merely recite a queue being based on the location of the user or other users. These cover a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). Claims 6 and 18 recite the additional element of a camera for capturing data which is a generic computer component and amounts to mere instructions to “apply it”.
Claim 10 recites the use of geo-fencing. Under both the practical application and significantly more analyses, geo-fencing merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (USPN: 9,984,520; hereinafter Heller) in view of Zhang et al. (USPPN: 2021/0125445; hereinafter Zhang)
As to claim 1, Heller teaches A system for providing a real-time virtual medical facility queue on a mobile device via a network (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 10 4:5-15, 8:44 teaching a method for managing a facility including a queue for various facilities such as a medical provider), comprising:
instructions stored in memory of the mobile device that, when executed by a processor of the mobile device (e.g., see Fig. 1, 23:10-41), cause the device to perform operations including:
displaying, on a display of the mobile device, data corresponding to at least one local medical facility based on a location of the mobile device (e.g., see Fig. 9, 8:43-56 wherein one or more medical care providers within a configurable distance of the user’s current location are displayed);
displaying, on a display of the mobile device, a virtual queue of patients pending treatment at the medical facility (e.g., see Fig. 10, 8:60-67 wherein facility status information is additionally displayed, including the number of users waiting at that facility); and
updating the virtual queue in real time based on geographic movement of the mobile device and a duration the mobile device remains at the at least one local medical facility (e.g., see 9:11-13, 10:33-27,18:26-35 wherein the user’s position in the queue may be updated based on their proximity to the facility, for instance when their estimated arrival time based on GPS data of their mobile device indicates they may be late or need to reschedule, and total time they have spent in the queue).
Heller fails to teach wherein the system further comprises at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device and trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue (see 112 rejection above).
However, in the same field of endeavor of location predictions, Zhang teaches wherein the system further comprises at least one machine learning model stored in the memory of the mobile device and trained on data collected from the at least one local medical facility, the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue (see 112 rejection above. Notably, the claim limitation of “the at least one machine learning model configured to improve the accuracy of the real time updating of the queue” is interpreted as being an intended use or result. Applicant is remined that, typically, no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim. An intended use generally does not impart a patentable distinction if it merely states an intention or is a description of how the claimed apparatus is to be used. An intended result is a description of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (See MPEP 2111.05). In the present case, the claims recite no structural or manipulative difference apart from the use of a machine learning model trained on local facility data to improve the accuracy, accordingly, where the prior art teaches the use of a machine learning model trained on a specific location data, then it meets the claimed limitation. see also Abstract, Fig. 3, [0019], [0027], [0028] teaching the use of machine learning algorithms, trained on historical data of a location, to determine customer wait times).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller in view of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to improve user experience by providing expected waiting times (e.g., see [0026] of Zhang).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heller further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor of the mobile device, further cause the device to perform operations including: scheduling an appointment based on user selection of an appointment confirmation button displayed on the mobile device (e.g., see Figs. 11-12, 3:26-29, 9:1-10, 18:23-35 wherein the system permits a user to meet with people, make a purchase, or make a request for service, such as an appointment, by selection of a button displayed on the device).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heller further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor of the mobile device, further cause the device to perform operations including: offering, on a display of the mobile device, a list of local medical facilities for user selection (e.g., see Fig. 9, 8:49-56 wherein a user can select from a list of nearby facilities).
As to claims 11-14, the claims are similar in scope to claim 8 (inclusive of claim 1) and are directed to the server implementing the method of claims 1 and 8 and are similarly rejected.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Heller further teaches sending updated virtual queue data based on a geographic location change of a third-party user mobile device (e.g., see 9:11-18, 12:43-47, 18:26-35 wherein the user’s position in the queue may be updated based on data from other users including including other user’s estimated arrival times based on their gps data).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Heller further teaches sending updated virtual queue data based on a cancellation received from a third-party user mobile device (e.g., see 9:11-18, 12:43-47, 18:26-35 wherein the user’s position in the queue may be updated based on data from other users, wherein other users can leave the queue and/or reschedule).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Heller further teaches updating virtual queue data based on an appointment cancellation received from the user mobile device (e.g., see 9:11-18, 12:43-47, 18:26-35, 19:23-25 wherein the user’s position in the queue may be updated based on data from the user or other users, wherein each user can leave the queue and/or reschedule).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller and Zhang, as applied above, and in further view of Shah (USPPN: 2010/0109861; hereinafter Shah).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. While Heller teaches tracking user devices and their estimated arrival times, Heller fails to teach providing a mobile device notification indicating a departure time based on the location of the mobile device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of travel assistance, Shah teaches providing a mobile device notification indicating a departure time based on the location of the mobile device (e.g., see [0012], [0020] wherein a departure notification is sent to a user device based on their location and other travel parameters that may impact travel to the destination).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller-Zhang in view of Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to aid a user to arrive at a scheduled event or appointment in a timely manner (e.g., see [0003]-[0005] of Shah)
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Heller-Shah further teach updating the departure time based on geographic movement of the mobile device (e.g., see 8:49-51, 18:30-35 of Heller wherein a user’s location is tracked based on the GPS data from their user device in order to updated the system of the visitor’s estimated arrival time. See also [0012], [0020] of Shah wherein a departure notification is based on a departure time from a source location. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the source location of Shah with the real-time GPS tracking data of Heller with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately reflect a user’s real time travel status).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. While Heller teaches updating a user’s position based on their speed of travel (e.g., see 9:12-15); Heller fails to explicitly teach updating the virtual queue based on user selection of a mode of travel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of travel assistance, Shah teaches user selection of a mode of travel (e.g., see [0024] wherein a user can select their mode of travel).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller-Zhang in view of Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to aid a user to arrive at a scheduled event or appointment in a timely manner (e.g., see [0003]-[0005] of Shah)
As to claim 19, the claim is directed to the server implementing the method of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller and Zhang, as applied above, and in further view of Streat et al. (USPPN: 2023/0187086; hereinafter Streat).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heller further teaches transmitting [insurance] data for a user of the mobile device to the medical facility via the network (e.g., see 3: 50-65, 22:31-35 teaching transmission of payment processing data or similar services to the facility. Notably, the particular type of data being insurance data is interpreted as an intended use statement. Applicant is remined that, typically, no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim. An intended use generally does not impart a patentable distinction if it merely states an intention or is a description of how the claimed apparatus is to be used. (See MPEP 2111.05)).
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of healthcare services, Streat teaches transmitting insurance data (e.g., see [0109] wherein insurance information is provided). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller-Zhang in view of Streat with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to collect information associated with providing healthcare services (e.g., see [0109] of Streat).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Streat further teaches wherein the insurance data is captured using a camera of the mobile device (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0064] of Streat teaching the use of a camera for capturing data). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller in view of Streat with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to collect information associated with providing healthcare services (e.g., see [0109] of Streat).
As to claims 17-18, the claims are directed to the server implementing the method of claims 5-6 and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller and Zhang, as applied above, and in further view of Varoglu et al. (USPPN: 2014/0171013; hereinafter Varoglu).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heller further teaches wherein updating the virtual queue based on geographic movement of the mobile device further comprises: determining a location of the mobile device with respect to the medical facility (e.g., see 9:11-17, 18:30-35 wherein a user’s position in the queue can be based on their location from the facility); and
removing a user indicator associated with the mobile device from the virtual queue when the mobile device travels outside of a preset proximity distance from the medical facility (e.g., see 10:25-28, 13:57-65 wherein a user can be removed from the queue when the user departs the location).
While Heller teaches tracking a user location from their mobile device and removing them from a virtual queue when they leave the facility location (i.e., preset proximity distance from the medical facility) and therefore reads upon the claimed limitation, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of monitoring users, Varoglu teaches mobile device travels outside of a preset proximity distance (e.g., see [0023] wherein a user device is tracked for deviations outside a threshold distance). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller-Zhang in view of Varoglu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to determine when a user is delayed (e.g., see [0007] of Varoglu).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Heller fails to teach wherein the present proximity distance from the medical facility is monitored via geofencing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring users, Varoglu teaches wherein the present proximity distance from the medical facility is monitored via geofencing (e.g., see Abstract, [0023] wherein a user device is tracked for deviations outside a threshold distance of geo-fence regions). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Heller-Zhang in view of Varoglu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to determine when a user is delayed (e.g., see [0007] of Varoglu).
Relevant Art not Cited
As a courtesy, the following prior art documents have been found during the course of examination and deemed relevant to applicant’s disclosure. Applicant is strongly encouraged to review the following references prior to any amendments/remarks:
Davies et al. (USPPN: 2003/0010822): Method and system for electronic route planning and virtual queue handling
He et al. (USPPN: 2016/0148238): Line management based on user tolerance
Bayne et al. (USPPN: 2014/0067441): Reservation management system and method
Backer et al. (USPPN: 2011/0307547): Electronic queuing systems and methods
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681