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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed May 21, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-17 and 20-21 were amended and claims 6, 10, 12-13 and 18-19 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 22, 2025 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the test to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 for product and process: first, determine whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Second, (Step 2A Prong 1) determining whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions). Third, (step 2 A prong 2) determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Fourth, (step 2B) determining whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims result in a practical application and impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception. In response, Examiner states that the interface recited in the claims adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is communicating with multiple systems for scheduling. The claims recite an interface for scheduling visits and organizing calls which is considered as mere data gathering. Therefore, claims 1-21 are ineligible under 35 USC 101 prong 2.
Applicant also argues that the claims provide a technical solution of a technical problem, and the claims reflect the technical solution and the improvement of reducing the amount of time administrators would spend in maintain on call schedules. In response, examiner states that the claims do not include any additional elements other than interface and a user device, which are generic computer components that are operating in a generic form. Moreover, reducing the amount of time for maintaining a schedule is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use under collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection. (MPEP 2106.05(h)) Similarly the claims recite receiving information, analyzing the interface with respect to the information received and displaying a schedule to the user based on the analysis. Therefore, claims 1-21 are ineligible under 35 USC 101 step 2B.
Applicant arguments with respect to the 102rejection has been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection 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 1-21 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, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving, at an on call coordination system, a request from a user to view an on call schedule associated with an identifier, wherein the identifier may be associated with a time and a date range or with at least one of one or more medical providers, one or more medical practices, one or more clinics, or one or more on call locations; querying, by the on call coordination system, schedule data for on call events using the identifier received with the request, wherein the schedule data centrally stores on call events associated with the one or more medical providers, the one or more medical practices, the one or more clinics, and the one or more on call locations; configuring the on call schedule based on the on call events received from the schedule data responsive to the query, wherein the on call schedule is further configured based on a characteristic associated with the user; further configuring the on call schedule which may format the on call schedule according to characteristics of the on call events by presenting the on call events with different visual indicators based at least on the one or more medical providers, the one or more medical practices, the one or more clinics, or the one or more on call locations, wherein the on call events include a first on call event presented with a first visual indicator and a second on call presented with a second visual indicator that differs from the first visual indicator; and transmitting the configured schedule to the user.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental process with a human using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors” and “one or more memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, “receiving”, “querying”, “configuring”, and “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to receiving a request for the on-call schedule, determining how to format the schedule and transmit the schedule to the user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “a memory device”, “user device” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 11 and 14 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-13 and 15-21, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-9, 12 and 20-21 define how the schedule is presented and formatted which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 10, 13 and 15-19 (user device) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takhar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0261706) in view of Schoenberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0108022).
As to claims 1, 11 and 14, Takhar teaches a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a system comprising:
receiving, at an on call coordination system, a request from a user device to view an on call schedule associated with an identifier, wherein the identifier may be associated with a time and a date range or with at least one of one or more medical providers one or more medical practices, one or more clinics, or one or more on call locations; (para 14, 27, 103 and 105, the user submits a request for booking an appointment for a medical provider that includes a date and time of the day)
querying, by the on call coordination system, schedule data for on call events using the identifier received with the request, wherein the schedule data centrally stores on call events associated with one or more medical providers, one or more medical practices, one or more clinics, and one or more on call locations; (Fig. 34-35 para 14, 26, 96 and 103, the system schedules the user at an urgent care location, based on the on call doctor present)
configuring the on call schedule based on the on call events received from the schedule data responsive to the query, wherein the on call schedule is further configured based on a characteristic associated with the user device; (para 96 and 112, shot that the system receives the schedule data and the patient profile (i.e. characteristics associated with user device))
further configuring the on call schedule according to a user interface configuration which may format the on call schedule according to characteristics of the user device, access and permission settings of the user and the manner in which the user device is connected to the on call coordination system; (fig. 7-16 and para 26, 89, 96, 99)
transmitting the configured schedule to the user device. (fig. 12)
Takhar does not teach:
presenting the on call events with different visual indicators based at least on the one or more medical providers, the one or more medical practices, the one or more clinics, or the one or more on call locations, wherein the on call events include a first on call event presented with a first visual indicator and a second on call device presented with a second visual indicator that differs from the first visual indicator
However, Schoenberg teaches:
presenting the on call events with different visual indicators based at least on the one or more medical providers, the one or more medical practices, the one or more clinics, or the one or more on call locations, wherein the on call events include a first on call event presented with a first visual indicator and a second on call device presented with a second visual indicator that differs from the first visual indicator (fig. 2 and para 9, 29, 48, the system presents a visual indicator with a drop menu)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use visual indicators in Takhar as taught by Schoenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Schoenberg that using doing so would suitably match physicians to patients.
As to claim 2, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the identifier is an identifier for a medical practice, wherein the on call schedule includes on call events associated with the medical practice at least one of the one or more on call locations, at least one of the one or more clinics, and with or at least one of the one or more medical providers.(fig. 32, 33 and para 150)
As to claims 3 and 17, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the identifier is an identifier for an on call location, wherein the on call schedule includes on call events associated with the call location at least one of the one or more on call locations, at least one of the one or more clinics, and with or at least one of the one or more medical providers. (fig. 32-35 and para 103, the schedule is for an on call urgent care)
As to claims 4 and 15, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the identifier is an identifier for a medical provider, wherein the on call schedule includes on call events associated with the medical provider and at least one or more medical practices, at least one or more clinics, or at least one or more on call locations. (Fig. 32, 33 and para 150, shows an interface presented to a user that includes specialist doctors (i.e. medical practice) in order to book an appointment)
As to claims 5 and 16, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the identifier is an identifier for a clinic, wherein the on call schedule includes on call events associated with the clinic at least one of the one or more on call locations, at least one of the one or more clinics, and with or at least one of the one or more medical providers.( fig. 32-35 and para 103)
As to claims 6 and 12, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the request is a request to view the on call schedule associated with the identifier and at least one additional identifier, wherein querying the schedule data for on call events includes identifying on call events in the schedule data associated with the identifier and any additional identifiers. (para 105 and fig. 34-35)
As to claim 7, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein configuring the on call schedule further includes querying provider data to obtain contact information of at least one of the one or more medical providers associated with the on call events received from the schedule data. (para 152 and fig. 34-35)
As to claim 8, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein configuring the on call schedule further includes querying on call location data to obtain information about at least one of the one or more on call locations associated with the on call events received from the schedule data. (para 105, 152 and fig. 34-35)
As to claim 9, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein configuring the on call schedule further includes querying clinic data to obtain information about at least one of the one or more on call locations associated with the on call events received from the schedule data. (para 105, 152 and fig. 34-35)
As to claims 10 and 13, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
receiving, at an on call coordination system, a request from a user device or medical management system to create an on call event or schedule associated with an identifier; (para 14, 27 and 103)
creating, by the on call coordination system, an on call event or schedule using the identifier received with the request, wherein the on call event or schedule may be associated with one or more medical providers, one or more medical practices, one or more clinics, one or more on call locations, or a time and date range; (para 14, 24 and 96)
storing the on call event or schedule in a centralized schedule data. (para 124)
As to claim 18, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein the user device may communicate with the one or more computing resources to create on call events or schedules associated with one or more of a medical practice, clinic, on call location, or medical provider, wherein the on call event or schedule is then stored in the schedule data storage system. (para 96 and 112)
As to claim 19, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein a medical management system may communicate with the user device and with the one or more computing resources to create on call events or schedules associated with one or more of a medical practice, clinic, on call location, or medical provider, wherein the on call event or schedule is then stored in the schedule data storage system. (fig. 7-16 and para 26, 89, 96, 99, 105)
As to claim 20, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Takhar further teaches:
wherein requests to view on call schedules may include querying the clinic data, on call location data, and medical provider data storage for information regarding the one or more clinics, the one or more on call locations, and the one or more medical providers associated with the on call schedule. (fig. 35 and para 153)
As to claim 21, Takhar in view of Schoenberg teach all the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Takhar does not teach:
wherein the medical provider data includes the one or more clinics the one or more providers are associated with, the one or more on call locations the one or more providers are associated with, the one or more medical practices the one or more providers are associated with, specialties of the one or more providers , contact information for the one or more providers, and general availability of the one or more providers.
However, Schoenberg teaches:
wherein the medical provider data includes the one or more clinics the one or more providers are associated with, the one or more on call locations the one or more providers are associated with, the one or more medical practices the one or more providers are associated with, specialties of the one or more providers , contact information for the one or more providers, and general availability of the one or more providers. (para 21, 33, 38 and 40)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine medical provider availability in Takhar as taught by Schoenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Schoenberg that using doing so would suitably match physicians to patients.
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 ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628