DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed October 20, 2025.
Claims 1-6 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 .
Response to Argument(s)
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 1-6 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 Claim 1:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?): Independent Claims 1 falls within the statutory category of method
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
The claim elements in the independent claim 1 which set forth the abstract idea are:
A method for managing patient appointments which maintains patient information, the method comprising:
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
displaying …[…]…in response to a request from a user;
adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee;
receiving the first meeting request
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 meeting requests for a calendar. 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 computer in a patient information management system
a display and a first user interface
an appointment scheduling 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 computer in 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
Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claim 1 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 2-6:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):The dependent claims 2-6 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 2-6 claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6 continue to limit the abstract idea in the independent claims by (1) limiting the types of patient information, (2) further limiting the calendar alias, and (3) further limiting the output of the meeting request 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 meeting requests for a calendar. 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 2-6 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claims 2-6 there are no additional elements not already recited in the independent claims therefore, purely the abstract idea; Accordingly the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): Dependent claims 2-6 do not include additional elements no additional elements not already recited in the independent claims thus purely the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHAI et. al (hereinafter GHAI) (US20190356778A1) in view of LESKE et. al (hereinafter LESKE) (US20170124518A1)
As per claim 1, Ghai teaches:
A computer-implemented method for managing patient appointments in a system comprising a patient information management system which maintains patient information, the method comprising: (abstract discloses, “A healthcare patient appointment management system for managing patient appointments.” And see fig. 1, 210 and see [0015] discloses, “Turning to the drawings , FIG . 1 shows the Smart Communications and Analytics Learning Engine ( SCALE ) system 100 in accordance with the present invention . The SCALE 100 can include an EMR ( Electronic Medical Records ) module 120 , SMS ( Short Message Service ) engine 122 , IVR 110 , and Controller 150.” And see [0018] discloses, “In operation , the EMR 120 contains all patient data and appointment data and can be represented by any of the myriad of EMR systems available in the market.”)
creating a first calendar alias for a first patient and adding the first calendar alias to information of the first patient in the patient information management system containing sensitive patient personal and medical information, wherein the first calendar alias secures the first patient’s personal and medical information; (see table 1 and see [0018] discloses, “The type of HL7 message used is Scheduling Information Unsolicited ( SIU ) and Patient Administration Admission / Discharge / Transfer ( ADT ) messages . SIU messages are part of the HL7 standard , and include information about appointments . The appointment data is in the SIU messages and the Patient Data is in the ADT message , and they are linked to each other via a unique patient identifier . The ADT message has the necessary information to identify an existing or a new patient along with his / her demographic detail and the SIU message has appointment related information for a particular patient . The ADT and SIU messages contain the following fields in Table 1:” and see [0028] discloses, “Referring to FIGS . 1 , 3 , the solution service component 156 receives the patient response data and determines if the user confirms the appointment , requests a new appointment , or cancels the appointment.” And see Table 1, “Patient Alias” and see [0048] discloses, “It is a safe and secure engine when it comes to user data , while being HIPAA compliant.” And see [0049] discloses, “Thus , teleconsultation is provided without the need of moving private clinical data from one system to another . As the medical professional has already access to the EMR ( 120 ) where all the patient's medical information is stored . Thus , the controller 150 need not send any information directly to the teleconsult engine 124. Small interventions such as patient identification , provider identification & tele consult order identification using the unique code in the message , the message when decoded by the VC application extracts the relevant data ( User ID of the Patient , User ID of Doctor , Appointment date - time ) and does the needful for a provider to access the correct record when the teleconsult is ongoing” )
displaying a first user interface for an appointment scheduling system in response to a request from a user; …[…]…via the first user interface; ([0028] discloses, “Referring to FIGS . 1 , 3 , the solution service component 156 receives the patient response data and determines if the user confirms the appointment , requests a new appointment , or cancels the appointment . If the user cancels the appointment or re - schedules the appointment , the solution service component 156 triggers the generation of a text message to the patient having the link for a video teleconsultation request . For example , an SMS text message can be sent to the patient via SMS messenger 122 , though any suitable messaging system can be utilized such as an email generator . To do so , the solution service component 156 retrieves the patient's SMS number ( e.g. , cell phone number , Patient Name , appointment date - time ) from the SCALE DB 158 , the SIU message . The data retrieved can vary depending on the SMS message to be sent to the user .” and see [0029] discloses, “The solution service component 156 then sends a control signal to the SMS engine 122 to generate an SMS message . The SMS is generated using a standard text message template , to the patient , with suitable information including a web link ( URL ) for launching a Video Conference ( VC ) application . For example , the solution service component 156 receives the responses from the call manager 110 , associated with patient identifying information ( e.g. , at least a patient ID and the responses to the questions as listed above ) . The solution service component 156 determines that the patient has cancelled the appointment , retrieves contact information from the database 158 associated with the patient ID , and generates a text message to send to the patient . The solution service component 156 then queues up the text message for transmitting to the linked phone number for the SMS engine 122 , which in turn transmits the message to the patient.” And see [0030] discloses, “The patient can then access the text message at his / her mobile device , and click on the VC link , which in turn launches a VC mobile or desktop application that initiates a teleconsultation with a healthcare provider ( e.g. , physician , nurse , pharmacy , etc. ) . In one embodiment , the message can be generic and lack any specific content for that particular patient , who can then set the parameters for the teleconsultation , for example , by selecting a healthcare provider . In another embodiment , the link can be customized to the patient so that the teleconsultation is established with the patient's own physician , as is provided in the patient identifying information already retrieved from the EMR 120 and available as data in the SCALE database 158.” And see [0031] discloses, “When the patient clicks on the link , the teleconsultation is established . A URI ( Universal Resource Identifier ) is generated using the VC Application Programming Interface ( API ).”)
…[…]…receiving the first meeting request at the patient information management system; ([0028] discloses, “Referring to FIGS . 1 , 3 , the solution service component 156 receives the patient response data and determines if the user confirms the appointment , requests a new appointment , or cancels the appointment.”)
…[…]… by the patient information management system, …[…]…(abstract discloses, “A healthcare patient appointment management system for managing patient appointments.” And see fig. 1, 210 and see [0015] discloses, “Turning to the drawings , FIG . 1 shows the Smart Communications and Analytics Learning Engine ( SCALE ) system 100 in accordance with the present invention . The SCALE 100 can include an EMR ( Electronic Medical Records ) module 120 , SMS ( Short Message Service ) engine 122 , IVR 110 , and Controller 150.” And see [0018] discloses, “In operation , the EMR 120 contains all patient data and appointment data and can be represented by any of the myriad of EMR systems available in the market.”)
However, GHAI does not explicitly teach the underlined portion:
adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee…[…]…
routing the first meeting request to the first patient by the patient information management system, based on the first calendar alias;
and adding the first meeting request to the first patient's calendar.
However, LESKE teaches the underlined portion:
adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee …[…]…([0019] discloses, “In various implementations, system 102 receives a meeting request from a user (e.g., user U1) organizing the meeting, where the meeting request includes a meeting time 304 and an access list 306. The user organizing the meeting may be referred to as the meeting organizer or meeting initiator. The meeting initiator may use any suitable electronic device (e.g., computer, laptop, tablet, Smartphone, etc.) to set up a meeting. And see [0019] discloses, “In various implementations, the access list includes a meeting initiator (e.g., user U1) and one or more invitees (e.g., user U2) that the meeting initiator specifies. Each meeting name is associated with a different access list. The access list may also be referred to as an access control list (ACL). In some implementations, the meeting is a video conference. In some implementations, the meeting is a video chat.” And see [0020] discloses, “In block 204, system 102 generates a calendar entry identifier 312 in response to meeting request 302.” And see [0023] discloses, “In block 208, system 102 sends one or more invitations 342 to one or more respective invitees (e.g., user U2), where each invitation includes an invitee identifier 344 and calendar entry identifier 346 to be verified.” And see [0017])
routing the first meeting request to the first patient by the patient information management system, based on the first calendar alias; ([0004] discloses, “sending one or more invitations to one or more respective invitees, where each invitation includes an invitee identifier and a calendar entry identifier to be verified;”)
and adding the first meeting request to the first patient's calendar. ([0020] discloses, “In block 204, system 102 generates a calendar entry identifier 312 in response to meeting request 302.” And [0004] discloses, “associating the calendar entry identifier with a calendar entry;”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GHAI’s teachings of a patient information management system for patient information including appointments with patient calendar alias with LESKE’s explicit teachings of routing a meeting request and adding it to a calendar, the motivation being GHAI teaches the burden of no show appointments on healthcare (see e.g. [0005]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine with LESKE’s explicit details of sending meeting requests and adding to a calendar to decrease the amount of no show appointments, reduce strain on resources, and improve the continuity of care with no unpredictable results as the computer elements and management strategy of appointments would remain the same from GHAI with the addition of added data steps from LESKE to follow through on appointments added to calendar.
As per claim 2, GHAI further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the patient information comprises the first patient's demographic information …[…]…([0015] discloses, “Turning to the drawings , FIG . 1 shows the Smart Communications and Analytics Learning Engine ( SCALE ) system 100 in accordance with the present invention . The SCALE 100 can include an EMR ( Electronic Medical Records ) module 120 , SMS ( Short Message Service ) engine 122 , IVR 110 , and Controller 150.” And see [0018] discloses, “In operation , the EMR 120 contains all patient data and appointment data and can be represented by any of the myriad of EMR systems available in the market…[…]…The ADT message has the necessary information to identify an existing or a new patient along with his / her demographic detail and the SIU message has appointment related information for a particular patient . The ADT and SIU messages contain the following fields in Table 1 :”)
However, GHAI does not teach explicitly the underlined portions:
The method of claim 1, wherein the patient information comprises the first patient's demographic information and the first patient's calendar. ([0022] discloses, “In block 206, system 102 associates calendar entry identifier 312 with a calendar entry 332 of a calendar 334. As described in more detail below, this enables meetings to be set up and coordinated via a calendar system. For ease of illustration, calendar 334 is shown separately from system 102. In various implementations, calendar 334 may be any Suitable calendaring system that system 102 can access. Calendar 334 may be separate from system 102 or integrated with system 102.”)
However, LESKE does teach explicitly the underlined portion:
The method of claim 1, wherein the patient information comprises the first patient's demographic information and the first patient's calendar. ([0022] discloses, “In block 206, system 102 associates calendar entry identifier 312 with a calendar entry 332 of a calendar 334. As described in more detail below, this enables meetings to be set up and coordinated via a calendar system. For ease of illustration, calendar 334 is shown separately from system 102. In various implementations, calendar 334 may be any Suitable calendaring system that system 102 can access. Calendar 334 may be separate from system 102 or integrated with system 102.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghai’s teachings of with LESKE’s for the same reasons given for claim 1.
As per claim 3, GHAI further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first calendar alias comprises a unique identifier of the first patient. ([0018] discloses, “The type of HL7 message used is Scheduling Information Unsolicited ( SIU ) and Patient Administration Admission / Discharge / Transfer ( ADT ) messages . SIU messages are part of the HL7 standard , and include information about appointments . The appointment data is in the SIU messages and the Patient Data is in the ADT message , and they are linked to each other via a unique patient identifier . The ADT message has the necessary information to identify an existing or a new patient along with his / her demographic detail and the SIU message has appointment related information for a particular patient.”)
As per claim 4, GHAI further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first calendar alias is associated with the first patient's email address. ([0018] discloses, “The type of HL7 message used is Scheduling Information Unsolicited ( SIU ) and Patient Administration Admission / Discharge / Transfer ( ADT ) messages . SIU messages are part of the HL7 standard , and include information about appointments . The appointment data is in the SIU messages and the Patient Data is in the ADT message , and they are linked to each other via a unique patient identifier . The ADT message has the necessary information to identify an existing or a new patient along with his / her demographic detail and the SIU message has appointment related information for a particular patient . The ADT and SIU messages contain the following fields in Table 1:” and see [0028] discloses, “Referring to FIGS . 1 , 3 , the solution service com ponent 156 receives the patient response data and deter mines if the user confirms the appointment , requests a new appointment , or cancels the appointment.” And see Table 1, “Patient Alias” and see [0020] discloses, “With the help of the Mirth interface 157 , these HL7 messages are inserted into staging tables in the SCALE database 158 , the staging tables save the data obtained from the EMR 120 and keep track of the original data received from the EMR . The staging tables can be stored , for example , at the database 158. There are two staging tables for entering data , namely Patient Staging data and Appoint ment Staging data . The tables contain the following data shown in Table 2” and see table 2, “patient email”)
As per claim 5, GHAI further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: …[…]…by the patient information management system. abstract discloses, “A healthcare patient appointment management system for managing patient appointments.” And see fig. 1, 210 and see [0015] discloses, “Turning to the drawings , FIG . 1 shows the Smart Communications and Analytics Learning Engine ( SCALE ) system 100 in accordance with the present invention . The SCALE 100 can include an EMR ( Electronic Medical Records ) module 120 , SMS ( Short Message Service ) engine 122 , IVR 110 , and Controller 150.” And see [0018] discloses, “In operation , the EMR 120 contains all patient data and appointment data and can be represented by any of the myriad of EMR systems available in the market.”)
However, GHAI does not teach the underlined portion:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating the first meeting request by the patient information management system.
However, LESKE does teach the underlined portion:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating the first meeting request by the patient information management system. ([0004] discloses, “and verifying one or more requests to join the meeting against the calendar entry identifier, where each request to join the meeting includes an invitee identifier and a calendar entry identifier to be verified.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghai’s teachings of with LESKE’s for the same reasons given for claim 1.
As per claim 6, GHAI further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: alerting the first patient about the first meeting request. ([0023] discloses, “In block 208, system 102 sends one or more invitations 342 to one or more respective invitees (e.g., user U2), where each invitation includes an invitee identifier 344 and calendar entry identifier 346 to be verified.” / examiner interprets the alerting as sending one or more invitations)
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
The applicant argues on pages 1-2 of the submitted remarks that the amended claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C § 101 are eligible for the following:
On page 2 of the Office Action dated 06/18/2025, claims 1-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner has alleged that the claims are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Under the Supreme Court’s two-step framework established in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 requires first determining whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea, and if so, whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The Federal Circuit has clarified that claims are not directed to an abstract idea when they are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate or to a specific improvement to a technology or technical field. Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological solution that improves computer functionality in the technical field of clinical trial data management systems. The claims recite a system that protects a patient’s sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) by generating and utilizing a calendar alias, which “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 (as filed specification, [0038]). Furthermore, the claimed invention is a practical application for clinical trial database management systems which provides enhanced security. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims provide enhanced security and a specific technological solution that improves computer functionality in the technical field of clinical trial data management systems. 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 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 meeting requests for a calendar. 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.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-5 of the remarks with respect to amended claims 1-6 are the following: Without acquiescing to the rejections of independent claim 1, and in an effort to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite, with emphasis added: (Currently Amended) A machine-implemented method for managing patient appointments in a system comprising a patient information management system which maintains patient information, the method comprises: establishing a controlled content repository, the controlled content repository being securely and controllably accessed; creating a first calendar alias for a first patient and adding the first calendar alias to information of the first patient in the patient information management system, wherein the first calendar alias secures the first patient’s personal and medical information; displaying a first user interface for an appointment scheduling system in response to a request from a user; adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee; receiving the first meeting request at the patient information management system; routing the first meeting request to the first patient by the patient information management system, based on the first calendar alias; and adding the first meeting request to the first patient’s calendar.
Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references Ghai, or Leske, either alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest “creating a first calendar alias for a first patient and adding the first calendar alias to information of the first patient in the patient information management system, wherein the first calendar alias secures the first patient’s personal and medical information” as recited in amended claim 1. Support for this limitation can be found in paragraph [0038] of the originally filed specification. The current application pertains to a patient information management system that provides the capability of scheduling appointments of clinical trial patients using a calendar alias. The calendar alias may be created and added to the record of the patient. This calendar alias “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 (as filed specification, [0038]). Examiner previously cited Ghai to teach the limitations of creating a calendar alias for a patient in a patient information management system, as well as displaying a user interface for an appointment scheduling system and receiving a meeting request. Ghai discloses a healthcare patient appointment management system that integrates an interactive voice response system with a tele-consult system to provide teleconsultation once a patient cancels or re-schedules an appointment (Ghai, paragraph [0008]). “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…The SMS message includes a link to conduct the teleconsultation with the patient and a healthcare provider via the teleconsult module” (Ghai, paragraph [0009]). Ghai’s invention is directed to addressing no-show appointments which represent a major burden on health care systems and have a negative impact on patient care (Ghai, paragraph [0005]). However, this is different from Applicant’s invention which schedules patient appointments on a calendar scheduling system using a calendar alias to protect sensitive patient personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI). Ghai does not teach (1) a first calendar alias, wherein the calendar alias secures the first patient’s personal and medical information, nor does Ghai teach (2) a user interface for the appointment scheduling system.
Examiner previously cited the unique patient identifier in paragraph [0018] as the calendar alias. However, the unique patient identifier is used to link the Scheduling Information Unsolicited (SIU) and Patient Administration Admission/Discharge/Transfer (ADT) messages. Ghai does not use the unique patient identifier in a meeting request, not does the unique patient identifier secure the first patient’s personal and medical information. In fact, paragraph [0028] of Ghai discloses “an SMS text message can be sent to the patient via SMS messenger 122, though any suitable messaging system can be utilized such as an email generator. To do so, the solution service component 156 retrieves the patient’s SMS number (e.g., cell phone number, Patient Name, appointment date-time) from the SCALE DB 158, the SIU message.” Ghai uses and references the sensitive patient information that Applicant’s claimed invention is protecting using the “calendar alias”, in order to establish contact with the patient.
Furthermore, Ghai does not teach adding a first calendar alias to a meeting request, associating the calendar alias in the information management system, routing the meeting request based on the first calendar alias, and adding the meeting request to the patient’s calendar based on the calendar alias. Leske does not cure the deficiencies of Ghai. Leske is cited to teach the limitations of adding the first calendar alias of the first patient to a first meeting request as a first invitee, routing the first meeting request the first patient by the patient information management system, based on the first calendar alias, and adding the first meeting request to the first patient’s calendar.
On page 10-11, Examiner cites paragraphs [0019]-[0020] of Leske, while referencing the calendar entry identifier as the calendar alias. The calendar entry identifier corresponds to the event itself and not the invitee, or patient. Leske does not teach adding a first calendar alias to a meeting request using a graphical user interface, associating the calendar alias in the information management system, routing the meeting request based on the first calendar alias, and adding the meeting request to the patient’s calendar based on the calendar alias.
For at least these reasons, the applied references fail to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the combination of features recited by independent claim 1. Therefore, independent claim 1 is patentable. The dependent claims are also patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies from a patentable independent claim, as well for the additional features they recite. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s argument but does not find them persuasive. To applicant’s first argument that the cited prior art of record does not teach the recited limitation “creating a first calendar alias for a first patient and adding the first calendar alias to information of the first patient in the patient information management system, wherein the first calendar alias secures the first patient’s personal and medical information” examiner notes the instant application specification defines the “calendar alias” in paragraph [0031] reciting “as a calendar alias may be created and added to the record of a first patient. In one embodiment, the calendar alias may be formatted like an email address, including a unique identifier of the first patient, and the @ symbol. In one embodiment, the calendar alias may be associated with the patient's email address.” Examiner therefore interprets the claim limitation in light of this information in the specification. Examiner notes the cited prior art of record as cited discloses in table 1 and see [0018] discloses, “The type of HL7 message used is Scheduling Information Unsolicited ( SIU ) and Patient Administration Admission / Discharge / Transfer ( ADT ) messages . SIU messages are part of the HL7 standard , and include information about appointments . The appointment data is in the SIU messages and the Patient Data is in the ADT message , and they are linked to each other via a unique patient identifier . The ADT message has the necessary information to identify an existing or a new patient along with his / her demographic detail and the SIU message has appointment related information for a particular patient . The ADT and SIU messages contain the following fields in Table 1:” and see [0028] discloses, “Referring to FIGS . 1 , 3 , the solution service component 156 receives the patient response data and determines if the user confirms the appointment , requests a new appointment , or cancels the appointment.” And see Table 1, “Patient Alias” and see [0048] discloses, “It is a safe and secure engine when it comes to user data , while being HIPAA compliant.” And see [0049] discloses, “Thus , teleconsultation is provided without the need of moving private clinical data from one system to another . As the medical professional has already access to the EMR ( 120 ) where all the patient's medical information is stored . Thus , the controller 150 need not send any information directly to the teleconsult engine 124. Small interventions such as patient identification , provider identification & tele consult order identification using the unique code in the message , the message when decoded by the VC application extracts the relevant data ( User ID of the Patient , User ID of Doctor , Appointment date - time ) and does the needful for a provider to access the correct record when the teleconsult is ongoing”
Therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand under broadest reasonable interpretation that GHAI is clearly teaching a calendar alias in the form of both patient identifiers as well as noted in table 1 a “calendar alias” for a patient and this information is added to the system for the purpose of completing appointments for the patient in telehealth form. Finally, GHAI teaches that the information such as the information disclosed in table 1 which includes patient sensitive information is secured through an engine which is HIPAA compliant. This appointment information is shown as cited in further recitations of claim in this office action through application programming shown on computer devices between provider and patient thus understood as a user interface. The applicant does not recite in the claims further limitation to how the information is secured using the calendar alias rather that there is one and it is used as information in appointments and that the information overall is broadly secure. In response to applicant's argument that the art of record and the instant application invention differ in the problem they are solving thus alluding that they may be nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, GHAI is a system for improving the efficiency and management of patient’s appointments as is the instant application and both in the same classification field G16H thus considered by examiner as analogous art.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Leske does not in combination with GHAI teach the remaining limitations as mapped within this office action examiner notes that Leske in paragraphs [0004], [0017], [0019], and [0020] teaches both an invitee identifier and a calendar identifier which are added to a meeting request routing that meeting request and creating a calendar entry for said meeting request. Therefore examiner under BRI maintains Leske teaches the recited claim limitations as aforementioned.
Thus examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection.
Prior Art Cited But Not Relied Upon
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.
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 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
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687