DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed May 05, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-19 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1 and 19:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?): Independent Claims 1 falls within the statutory category of method
Claim 19 falls within the statutory category of system
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1 and 19 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
The claim elements in the independent claims (claim 1 as representative) which set forth the abstract idea are:
A method for managing patient appointments comprising which maintains patient information, the method comprises: creating a first calendar alias for a first patient and adding the first calendar alias to information of the first patient containing sensitive patient personal and medical information,
wherein the first calendar alias secures the first patient's personal and medical information;
wherein the first calendar alias is formatted like an email address including a unique identifier of the first patient;
displaying in response to a request from a clinical trial site user;
adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee, wherein the first calendar alias is used in place of the first patient's personal information in the first meeting request;
receiving the first meeting request;
validating the first meeting request to confirm the first meeting request is from a valid user account associated;
routing the first meeting request to the first patient, based on the first calendar alias;
and adding the first meeting request to the first patient's calendar.
which falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” as following rules or instructions based on gathered data to manage patient appointments by utilizing a calendar alias which is something that would be done to maintain PHI privacy. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent Claim 1 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claim 1 the additional elements are:
a machine comprising a patient information management system
a display and a first user interface
an appointment scheduling system
a clinical trial management system
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a machine comprising a patient management system , is performing the abstract idea and stated as general purpose computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather, manipulate, and output data (see instant application specification para. [0040] and [0043])
The additional elements, a display and a first user interface, are merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to output information
The additional elements, an appointment scheduling system, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather data for a calendar meeting
The additional elements, a clinical trial management system, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather data for a calendar meeting
In Claim 19 the additional elements not already recited in Claim 1 are:
a patient information management server having a processing unit and a system memory
a network
a user computing device
a display and a first user interface
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a patient information management server having a processing unit and a system memory, is performing the abstract idea and stated as general purpose computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather, manipulate, and output data (see instant application specification para. [0040] and [0043])
The additional element, a network, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to send and receive data
The additional elements, a patient information management server, are merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather data
Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims 1 and 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2 above, these additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, amount to no more than applying the abstract idea to gather, manipulate, and output data and thus insufficient to provide “significantly more”. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-18:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):The dependent claims 2-18 fall within the statutory category of method.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-18 claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-18 continue to limit the abstract idea in the independent claims by (1) limiting the types of patient information, (2) further limiting the calendar alias, (3) further limiting the output of the meeting request, and (4) further limiting to clinical trial participants and information thus, inheriting the same abstract idea which falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” as following rules or instructions based on gathered data to manage patient appointments by utilizing a calendar alias which is something that would be done to maintain PHI privacy. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): In Claims 2-18 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claims 2-18 the additional elements are:
a multi-tenant system
a virtual meeting link
a client application on a user’s computing device
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a multi-tenant system, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to gather data
The additional element, a virtual meeting link, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to send data
The additional element, a client application on a user’s computing device, is merely applying the abstract idea as “apply-it” to output and receive data
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): Dependent claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2 above, these additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, amount to no more than applying the abstract idea to gather, manipulate, and output data and thus insufficient to provide “significantly more”. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim and thus by dependency the dependent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of using calendar aliases for specific patient scheduling associated within clinical trial management systems and validating that association as examiner would need to apply the same BRI across all statutes thus patient and clinical recitation would require breaking the claim limitations without proper motivation and this goes beyond the obviousness to combine of mere broad calendar alias associated with meeting requests for any user as the limitations require functional validation of association with a clinical trial management system and specific patient workflow to recite the instant application claims. For additional reasoning see applicants remarks dated 05/05/2026, pages 7-8.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
GHAI et. al (hereinafter GHAI) (US20190356778A1)
A healthcare patient appointment management system for managing patient appointments . The system includes an interactive voice response ( IVR ) , teleconsult module , and SMS messaging system . The IVR module calls a patient , and solicits patient responses to confirm a patient appointment . The teleconsult module provides a teleconsultation with the patient . And the SMS messaging system provides SMS messages to the patient . A controller is in communication with the IVR module , teleconsult module , and SMS messaging system . The controller receives the patient responses from the interactive voice response module and determines if the patient confirmed the patient appointment . If the controller determines that the patient does not confirm the patient appointment , then the controller sends an SMS message to the patient via the SMS messaging system . The SMS message includes a link to conduct the teleconsultation with the patient and a healthcare provider via the teleconsult module
LESKE et. al (hereinafter LESKE) (US20170124518A1)
Implementations generally relate to facilitating meetings. In Some implementations, a method includes receiving a meeting request for a meeting. The method further includes generating a calendar entry identifier in response to the meeting request. The method further includes associating the calendar entry identifier with a calendar entry. The method further includes verifying one or more requests to join the meeting against the calendar entry identifier.
Holmes et. al (hereinafter Holmes) (US11386397B2)
In a non - limiting examples of the present disclosure , systems , methods and devices for providing cross - domain access to calendar availability are presented . A request to schedule an event may be received . The request may comprise an identity of an organizer user account , the organizer user account associated with a first domain , and an identity of an invitee user account , the invitee user account associated with a a second domain . An importance level of the organizer user account to the invitee user account may be determined . A determination may be made as to whether the organizer user account has access to events in an electronic calendar associated with the invitee user account based on the importance level . One or more events that the organizer account has access to may be surfaced in an event scheduling assistant user interface associated with the organizer user account
Swerdlow (US20240078517A1)
A system may apply a security configuration to a digital calendar corresponding to a first user. The digital calendar may be maintained by calendar software. The digital calendar may include an event having multiple event details including a date for the event and a time for the event. Access to the multiple event details may be limited to the first user by the security configuration. The system may access a data structure in a data store to determine a connection between the first user and a second user based on a user attribute associated with the second user. The system may change the security configuration to grant access to an event detail of the multiple event details to a device associated with the second user based on the connection between the first user and the second user.
Ach et. al - US20120253868A1
A healthcare information communication system is configured to facilitate scheduling of patient appointments without sending information to the medical practice indicating preferred appointment times. The system searches a current schedule for appointments at the medical practice for available timeslots to schedule an appointment. The current schedule is stored by a scheduling component of a practice management system. In response to receiving a selection of an available timeslot to schedule the appointment, the current schedule for appointments at the medical practice is updated in real-time without intervention from staff at the medical practice. An administrator at the medical practice may configure aspects of the scheduling component to customize appointment scheduling for one or more departments and/or providers at the medical practice. The system stores scheduling configuration information associating appointment types with Schedule timeslots and the scheduling configuration. information may be used in the determination of available timeslots when scheduling an appointment.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
The applicant argues on pages 1-4 of the submitted remarks that the claims under 35 U.S.C § 101 are eligible for the following:
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea falling within "certain methods of organizing human activity" without significantly more. The Examiner has alleged that the claims are directed to "following rules or instructions based on gathered data to manage meeting requests for a calendar." The Examiner has further alleged that the additional elements—a computer in a patient information management system, a display and a first user interface, and an appointment scheduling system—are merely "apply-it" generic computer tools. Applicant respectfully traverses.
As an initial matter, claim 1, as amended, recites several specific technical features that were not present in the claims previously considered by the Examiner. Claim 1 now recites, inter alia: "wherein the first calendar alias is formatted like an email address including a unique identifier of the first patient"; displaying a user interface "in response to a request from a clinical trial site user"; adding the calendar alias to a meeting request "wherein the first calendar alias is used in place of the first patient's personal information in the first meeting request"; and "validating the first meeting request at the patient information management system to confirm the first meeting request is from a valid user account associated with a clinical trial management system." These amendments materially change the eligibility analysis.
Even assuming arguendo that claim 1 recites an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One, the claim as a whole integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. As set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Among the considerations the courts have found indicative of integration into a practical application is "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field."
Amended claim 1 recites a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem in the field of clinical trial appointment scheduling systems. The technical problem is that scheduling appointments for clinical trial patients risks exposing sensitive patient PII/PHI. As described in paragraph [0038] of the as-filed specification, the method "allows the clinical trial site user to schedule the appointment with the first patient securely, without risking the first patient's personal information and medical information." The technical solution recited in claim 1 is not merely "following rules" on a generic computer. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific data structure—a calendar alias "formatted like an email address including a unique identifier of the first patient"—that is specifically created and used as a proxy "in place of the first patient's personal information in the first meeting request." This is a concrete technical mechanism that changes how data flows through the appointment scheduling system: instead of the patient's actual personal information being included in the meeting request, the system substitutes a specifically formatted alias that shields the patient's identity. Claim 1 further recites a server-side validation step—"validating the first meeting request at the patient information management system to confirm the first meeting request is from a valid user account associated with a clinical trial management system"—which ensures the integrity and security of the system by filtering out unauthorized requests before routing. As described in paragraph [0035] of the as-filed specification, the meeting request is validated "to make sure that it is from a valid user account associated with the clinical trial management system 110, instead of spam."
These features, taken as an ordered combination, provide a specific improvement to the technology of clinical trial patient information management systems. The claim does not merely recite the abstract concept of scheduling appointments and then add "apply it on a computer." Rather, claim 1 recites a particular technical architecture in which a specifically formatted alias data structure is created, associated with a patient record, used as a substitute for personal information in meeting requests, validated against authorized accounts, and then resolved by the patient information management system to route the request—all without exposing the patient's sensitive information during the scheduling workflow. This is analogous to the eligible claim in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, Claim 1, where the claim was found to integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application because the additional elements recited "a specific improvement over prior art systems."
The Examiner has alleged that "the claims are confined to a general purpose computer" and "do not claim improved computer functionality within clinical management systems and enhanced security," and that "any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not merely recite a general-purpose computer performing abstract scheduling tasks. The claims recite specific technical steps—creating a specifically formatted alias data structure, substituting that alias for personal information in meeting requests, and performing server-side validation against a clinical trial management system—that together constitute a specific technical mechanism for improving the security of patient data within clinical trial appointment scheduling systems. This is not an improvement to the abstract idea itself; it is an improvement to how the computer system handles sensitive data during the scheduling process.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1, and claims dependent thereon, are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive.
Applicant argues first that the calendar alias is a specific data structure which shields patient data and the validation step is a filtering mechanism to secure this data. Examiner notes while patient data security in a broad sense may be a technical problem if it were recited in the specification and recited/reflected in the claims in a technical manner, but the solution recited/reflected in the instant application claims is not a technical solution to this problem and the specification merely states a result of not risking patients data with no technical reasoning on why the security and integrity of PHI has issues today being secured within technical confines of the additional elements of the general computer implemented sytem. Examiner notes the calendar alias itself is not a data structure confined to the general purpose computer but merely an abstraction of an identifier for a patient which is claimed to be formatted “like” an email address. Further the validation step is not recited in the claims as a technical filtering of unauthorized requests confined to the computer before routing but rather is claimed in an abstract and broad manner of a check to the user information to confirm it is valid and not spam something similar to what a human would do when checking any received correspondence. Examiner notes the claims are confined to a general purpose computer (see instant specification e.g. para. [0040]) and do not claim improved computer functionality within clinical management systems and enhanced security. The instant application claimed invention is not analogous to example 42 claim 1 as this example claimed technically confined steps to the computer which reflected back to a clear technically confined problem of the computer. While the calendar alias may be of a format type it is not recited in the claim that it is a “standard” format converted from a non-standard format in real time as claimed in example 42. The claimed invention is using the computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of following rules or instructions based on gathered data to manage patient appointments by utilizing a calendar alias which is something that would be done to maintain PHI privacy. Finally, were applicant’s line of reasoning correct, the invention in Alice Corp. would have been subject matter eligible because it was an improvement to the technology of settlement risk mitigation. Thus examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
