DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Status
This First Action Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12 January 2026. Claims 4, 10, 14 and 21-22 have been cancelled, claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended, and claims 24-25 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-20, and 23-25 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
The Examiner has indicated allowability over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
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, 5-9, 11-13, 15-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system (claims 1-3, 5-9, and 23), method (claims 11-13 and 15-19), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 20 and 24-25), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a patient management system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining, based on receiving geolocation data from a wearable device of a patient and accessing patient data associated with an account of the patient, that the patient is within a threshold distance of a healthcare facility, wherein the patient has a scheduled appointment with a provider at the healthcare facility; in response to determining the patient is within the threshold distance, automatically checking-in the patient for the scheduled appointment; dynamically tracking, using data received from a plurality of wearable devices for a plurality of patients, a plurality of geolocations of the plurality of patients within the healthcare facility to manage patient congestion based on a number of patients in a plurality of areas of the healthcare facility; in response to checking-in the patient based on the geolocation data from the wearable device of the patient indicating the patient is within the threshold distance of the healthcare facility, assigning the patient to a target area based on capacity of the healthcare facility and the number of patients in the plurality of areas of the healthcare facility, generating, based on the geolocation data of the patient and the target area associated with the scheduled appointment, navigation instructions for the patient; transmitting, to the wearable device of the patient, a first notification indicating: i) that the patient is ready to be seen by the provider, and ii) the target area in the healthcare facility to which the patient is to navigate for the scheduled appointment; transmitting, to the wearable device of the patient, a second notification prompting the patient to submit payment of out-of-pocket expenses related to the scheduled appointment; dynamically tracking, using data received from the wearable device, one or more updated geolocations of the patient within the healthcare facility, the one or more updated geolocations being used to determine when the patient has exited the healthcare facility; and updating a status of the patient in a digital patient tracker based on the one or more updated geolocations of the patient within the healthcare facility.
Independent claim 11 is analyzed in the same manner as claim 1 above since claim 11 is directed to a method of performing the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above. Independent claim 20 is analyzed in the same manner as claim 1 above since claim 20 is directed to One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above.
The dependent claims (claims 2-3, 5-9, 12-13, 15-19, and 23-25) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate using assisted global navigation satellite system (A-GNSS) or assisted global positioning system (A-GPS), or an indoor positioning system (IPS) (claims 2, 8, 12, 18, and 24), one of updating patient status, adding the patient to a queue, or notifying a remote computer (claims 3, 13, and 25), receiving user payment input and facilitating payment (claims 5 and 15), notification timing (at claims 6 and 16), the wearable device displaying directions (claims 7 and 17), position tracking being facilitated by an indoor positioning system (IPS) (claims 8 and 18), periodically transmit position updates to a remote computing system (claims 9 and 19), and/or that the updating comprises adding the patient to the tracker upon check-in and removing the patient upon exit (claim 23).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of checking in for a healthcare appointment; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping(s) of subject matter.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, using and communicating to/from a user’s wearable device, dynamically tracking, using data from a user’s wearable device, and automatically performing activities (at claim 1), the use of A-GNSS, A-GPS), or IPS as outside sources of information, notifying a remote computer (at dependent claims 3, 13, and 24-25), and/or One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (at claim 20). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant ¶¶ 0029-0032 and 0046-0048 describe the systems (including a/the smartwatch) as general-purpose devices or equipment.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-20, and 23-25 are indicated as allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The independent claims require determining a patient is within a threshold distance of a healthcare facility at which they have an appointment based on a wearable device geolocation, checking the patient in, dynamically tracking patients in the facility, assigning the patient to an area in the facility, generating navigation instructions for the target area for the patient appointment, sending a notification to the wearable device that the patient is ready to be seen and the target area of the appointment, sending a prompt to the wearable device to submit payment of out-of-pocket expenses related to the appointment, tracking the patient (via the wearable device geolocation) to determine the patient has exited the facility, and updating a patient status based on geolocation within the facility.
The closest art of record, Balwani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0253464, hereinafter Balwani), discloses the device(s), tracking location as within the threshold distance and checking the patient in, and notifying the patient device that the patient is ready to be seen and the appointment location.
Slepian (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0226141, hereinafter Slepian) further teaches dynamically tracking the patient and updating their status.
Spiegel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0242585) further teaches a user device such as a smartphone (Spiegel at 0024), communicating with a hospital application (Id. at 0012), automatically setting calendar appointments based on a doctor’s (i.e., provider’s) message (Id. at 0253, 0263), including pay bill reminders set on the calendar (Id. at 0361).
However, based on the specifics regarding who sets or originates the messages, and when they happen, it appears unreasonable at this time to combine the various prior art so as to arrive at the particulars of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the 101 rejections (Id. at 9-12), first discussing eligibility guidance (Id. at 9-10, referencing the outdated PEG), then alleging that the claims integrate to a practical applicant since “by being able to dynamically track locations of patients to then assign a patient to a target area according to the spatial distribution of the patients” (Id. at 10). However, other than “dynamically” indicating or implying the use of a device (such as the wearable device) for identifying location, this is an indication of the abstract idea – people can (and have) tracked persons to assign them to an area based on the crowding or distribution of persons in respective areas. Even the dynamic portion of the allegation (other than the implication at the allegation/argument and the claimed use of a device) is readily performed by persons – the Examiner and many, many others have for years dynamically tracked the persons at stores, concession stands, in traffic, etc. to dynamically assess the number and/or density of people or a crowd so as to attempt to choose the less crowded (and hopefully faster) checkout line, bathroom access, highway lane, etc. Merely doing this by use of computers and through using data from wearable devices does not garner eligibility or transform the claims to a practical application.
Applicant then indicates that “the Office must consider whether the additional elements include a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (Remarks at 11), and the Examiner agrees. However, Applicant then argues a series of elements that generally constitute the abstract idea, and does NOT indicate what additional elements are alleged to not be well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity. Did Applicant invent or improve the processor? the/a memory for a computer? the/a wearable device? GPS? or what additional element? None of the additional elements appears changed in use or function, they are merely being used as apparently designed and intended and for the purpose they normally are used for. Therefore they are considered insignificant as additional elements since merely be used to apply the abstract idea, as indicated at the rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patient Works, Contactless Mobile Patient Self Registration, dated 28 May 2022 and downloaded 8 November 2025 via the Archive.org WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20220528221549/https://www.patientworks.com/mobile-check-in/ indicates that mobile check-in by use of a mobile devices is known.
Vorakulpipat et al., A Mobile-Based Patient-Centric Passive System for Guiding Patients Through the Hospital Workflow: Design and Development, JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(7):e14779, URL: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2019/7/e14779, DOI: 10.2196/14779. Indicating that “EasyHos has been developed to help patients recognize their status (for example, “waiting for an appointment at 11am“) during their stay in a hospital using all existing infrastructure and hospital data and without changing existing hospital's process” (at Background).
Ebrahimzadeh et al., Evaluation of the Effects of Radio-Frequency Identification Technology on Patient Tracking in Hospitals: A Systematic Review. Journal of Patient Safety 17(8):p e1157-e1165, December 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000446, downloaded 5 March 2026 from https://www.sci-hub.in/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000446, indicating that “Of all the extracted studies, seven evaluated the accuracy of the systems in crowded and unattended areas, and five of these were satisfied with their accuracy” (at Abstract, Results) and that “Although most studies reported a positive impact on the accuracy and precision of patient identification, there is insufficient good evidence to show that RFID systems can accurately localize patients in crowded settings” (at Abstract, Conclusions).
Chiou et al., A Real-Time, Automatic, and Dynamic Scheduling and Control System for PET Patients Based on Wearable Sensors. Sensors 2021, 21, 1104. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041104, downloaded from https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/4/1104 on 5 March 2026, indicating “This paper proposes a real-time automatic scheduling and control system for PET patients with wearable sensors. The system can automatically schedule, estimate and instantly update the time of various tasks, and automatically allocate beds and announce schedule information in real time. We implemented this system, collected time data of 200 actual patients, and put these data into the implementation program for simulation and comparison” (at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685