DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant Argument Response
Examiner answers all applicant arguments filled on 06/26/2026, under subject matter eligibility 35 U.S.C 101, and found not persuasive for the reason below:
Applicant argues that it is impossible for the human mind to perform the indicated steps concurrently and thus the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagreed because the server, communication mechanisms, named technological tools, and concurrency clause are additional elements rather than the identified exceptions and do not remove prong one as explained below in prong one. Therefore dependent claims maintain the rejection of subject matter eligibility, since they narrow the same patient-routing and capacity-evaluation workflow.
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, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite abstract ideas without additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 each recite a computer-implemented method comprising acts for locating and evaluating medical-care centers and communicating results. Each claim is a statutory process under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and MPEP § 2106.03. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One determines whether a claim recites a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea within an enumerated grouping.
Independent Claims Analysis
Representative claim 13
13. A computer-implemented method for locating a medical care center for a patient, the computer-implemented method comprising:
a) providing a patient software application for execution on a mobile electronic device operated by the patient, the patient software application being configured to obtain patient location information, receive a description of current medical needs of the patient, receive a request for locations of medical care centers, and transmit data representative of the patient location information and the request for locations of medical care centers;
b) receiving at a remote server the data representative of the patient location information and the request for locations of medical care centers;
c) determining, via the remote server, locations of a plurality of medical care centers within a predetermined distance of the patient location;
d) analyzing, via the remote server, data representative of an estimated wait time for each of the medical care centers within the predetermined distance of the patient location;
e) determining, via the remote server, a combined drive and wait time for each of the medical care centers based on the patient location, the locations of the medical care centers, and the estimated wait time for the medical care centers;
f) determining, via the remote server, fastest routes to the plurality of medical care centers via real-time traffic and route optimization;
g) determining, via the remote server, a low match medical care center from the plurality of medical care centers, wherein the low match medical care center is incompatible with current medical needs of the patient;
h) determining, via the remote server, a best match medical care center from the plurality of medical care centers, wherein the best match medical care center is an optimal medical care center based on compatibility with the current medical needs of the patient and previous usage by the patient of the best match medical care center;
i) determining, via the remote server, a high match medical care center from the plurality of medical care centers, wherein the high match medical care center is an optimal medical care center based on compatibility with the current medical needs and the combined drive and wait time for the high match medical care center but is not an optimal medical care center based on previous usage by the patient of the best match medical care center;
j) determining, via the remote server, a medium match medical care center from the plurality of medical care centers, wherein the medium match medical care center is compatible with the current medical needs of the patient but has a greater combined drive and wait time than the combined drive and wait time of the best match medical care center and the combined drive and wait time of the high match medical care center;
k) transmitting, from the remote server to the mobile electronic device operated by the patient, information representative of the combined drive and wait time for at least one of the plurality of medical care centers; and
l) transmitting, from the remote server to the mobile electronic device operated by the patient, indications of the low match medical care center, the best match medical care center, the high match medical care center, and the medium match medical care center,
wherein at least one of steps d), e), and f) and at least one of steps g), h), i), and j) are performed concurrently.
Non-bold language identifies the judicial-exception limitations; bold language identifies additional elements.
Under MPEP § 2111, claim 13 obtains patient and facility information; identifies nearby centers; estimates, combines, and compares travel and wait times; evaluates compatibility and prior use; assigns low, best, high, and medium match classes; and communicates the times and classifications. The concurrency clause requires temporal overlap between any one step d)-f) and any one step g)-j), not concurrent performance of every listed step.
The non-bold evaluative and informational language in [a] and [c]-[I] recites mental processes: a person can obtain the patient’s location and needs, consult facility and route information, estimate and compare times, evaluate compatibility and prior use, and form the recited time and match information. Limitations [e], [I], and [j] also recite mental process calculation and numerical ordering by forming combined drive-and-wait values and comparing their magnitudes.
The non-bold match and recommendation content in [g]-[I and final limitation] also recites managing personal behavior. It designates care options as incompatible or optimal and orders them by medical needs, prior use, and time before presenting low, best, high, and medium indications to the patient. That normative ranking guides the patient’s care-seeking choice; of the Specification describes the “Best Match” as “the best choice.” Specification [0038].
Under BRI, claims 1 and 21 recite no abstract idea materially different from claim 13. Their additional patient-data sources, triage, severity, wait-estimation, and match-selection rules merely refine the information and criteria used to evaluate and recommend a medical-care center. Those evaluations remain mental judgments and managing personal behavior; claim 1’s preventative-care alert and both claims’ severity-based and ranked recommendations continue to manage the patient’s care-seeking behavior.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Because each dependent claim incorporates its respective independent claim, claims 3–5, 10, 15–17, and 19 recite the same abstract ideas identified in the independent-claim analysis. Their added limitations do not change the Prong One determination.
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17 restrict patient-information sources to a profile or prior requests; claims 10 and 19 restrict wait estimation to insurance information or to historical waits and current check-ins. These limitations refine the information or rule used. Claims 4 and 16 add patient entry through the application or a prompt; the entered information remains evaluation content.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 therefore recite one or more abstract ideas and proceed to Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two determines whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the recited exceptions into a practical application.
For claims 1, 13, and 21, the additional elements are the patient application and mobile device, remote server and communications, information receipt and result transmission, real-time traffic and route optimization, and cross-group concurrency. Claims 1 and 21 also recite prompted application input, image recognition, wearable-data acquisition, NLP, records retrieval, an AI chatbot, and AI wait prediction.
Independent Claims Analysis
The application, mobile device, server, communications, information receipt, and result transmission supply information, execute the evaluations, and report the resulting times and match indications does not recite practical applications. They neither improve those components nor make them integral to a different technological operation. Beyond transmitting informational results, the claims perform no downstream treatment, dispatch, navigation control, transformation of an article, or other real-world action; limiting those functions to medical-center recommendations supplies only a field of use. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f), and (h).
The real-time traffic and route optimization limitation does not recite practical applications. Supplies fastest-route information to the time comparison but neither controls navigation nor changes routing technology. The prompted input, image-recognition, wearable-acquisition, and records-retrieval functions does not recite practical applications. Supply patient information. The NLP, chatbot, and AI-prediction functions interpret, triage, or predict information for the recommendation workflow. The claims specify the required information or result, not a changed input, recognition, retrieval, language-processing, triage, prediction, or computer operation. These functions therefore apply the exceptions in a computer environment without a technological improvement or another meaningful application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), (e), and (f).
Under BRI, the following does not recites practical applications claim 1 requires one step g)-i) to overlap one step j)-m); claim 13 requires one step d)-f) to overlap one step g)-j); and claim 21 requires one step g)-i) to overlap one step j)-l). The clauses specify no processor allocation, thread, scheduler, synchronization, work partition, data dependency, or technical-performance result. Specification [0027], [0044]; Fig. 4, drawing p. 3. The claimed temporal overlap changes when one cross-group pair executes, not how any computer function operates.
For claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21, the additional elements as an ordered combination collect information through the application, perform the evaluative workflow on the server using result-defined tools, transmit the recommendations, and require one unspecified cross-group overlap. That arrangement neither changes computer operation nor applies the results through treatment, machine control, or transformation. It does not integrate the exceptions into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17 add no additional element beyond the patient-information source restrictions evaluated in Prong One. Claims 10 and 19 add no additional element beyond the wait-estimation inputs evaluated there. The application-entry and prompt mechanisms of claims 4 and 16 only supply patient information to the inherited evaluations and claim no improved interface or technological interaction. They do not change the Prong Two result.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application and proceed to Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, contribute an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the recited exceptions.
For claims 1, 13, and 21, the additional elements remain the patient application and mobile device, remote server and communications, information receipt and result transmission, real-time traffic and route optimization, and cross-group concurrency. Claims 1 and 21 also recite prompted application input, image recognition, wearable-data acquisition, NLP, records retrieval, an AI chatbot, and AI wait prediction.
Independent Claims Analysis
The remote server, mobile device, communications, information receipt, and result transmission perform ordinary network data receipt and transmission. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) recognizes those functions as WURC when claimed generically. The specification likewise identifies “conventional web hosting operating software” and access “in a conventional manner” while describing server receipt and transmission ([0018]), a “conventional Internet connection” for mobile devices ([0022]), and “conventional switching and routing equipment” ([0024]). That function-matched evidence supports WURC only for these generic components in their ordinary communication roles. The patient application on the mobile device and the remote server recite no architecture or operation beyond using those components to receive, process, and transmit the workflow information; they invoke the computers as tools to perform the exceptions. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.07(a)(III).
The prompted application input and wearable-data acquisition only select and supply patient information to the evaluations. Because the evaluations require patient data and no later operation changes according to how that data was entered or acquired, these limitations are nominal source-selection and necessary input activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g)(2)-(3), not an inventive application or processing technique. The records retrieval and insurance-card image recognition perform generic information retrieval and extraction at the same level recognized as WURC in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)-(v).
The NLP interprets the patient request, the AI chatbot performs preliminary symptom triage, and AI wait prediction supplies an estimated wait when direct data is unavailable. Each is defined by the evaluative result required, without a claimed model, algorithm, architecture, or changed computer operation. The limitations therefore instruct named tools to perform the abstract interpretation, triage, or prediction, rather than claim a technological solution, particular machine, transformation, treatment, or machine control. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), and (f).
The real-time traffic and route optimization limitation supplies fastest-route information used in the combined-time evaluation. It claims no routing technique, navigation control, or changed operation of a mapping or traffic system. Its result-defined use in the medical-center workflow is an instruction to obtain route information for the exception, not an inventive technological application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), (e), (f), and (h).
The concurrency clauses claim a timing condition, not a technical arrangement. Each clause is satisfied when wait-time analysis overlaps a best-match determination: claim 1 step g) with k), claim 13 step d) with h), or claim 21 step g) with j). The limitation does not changed computer operation between the overlapping steps. Specification [0027], [0044]. The temporal instruction therefore adds no technological improvement or other inventive limitation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), (e), and (f).
For claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21, the additional elements as an ordered combination join the supported WURC communication functions, input functions, result-defined analytical functions, and one unspecified overlap. The overlap creates no allocation, synchronization, data dependency, or changed operation among those elements. The claimed arrangement therefore remains computer execution of the evaluative workflow with a timing instruction and supplies no inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17 add only patient-information source restrictions; claims 10 and 19 add only wait-estimation inputs. Those limitations remain part of the abstract evaluations addressed in Prong One. The application-entry and prompt mechanisms of claims 4 and 16 occur before the inherited evaluations and only select and supply patient information; no later operation depends on how that information was entered. They are nominal, necessary input activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g)(2)-(3) and, individually or with the inherited elements, add no significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 recite abstract mental evaluations, mathematical relationships, and a patient-routing workflow that manages personal behavior. Their additional elements do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application and do not supply an inventive concept.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0409. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/J.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights