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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 12/5/2025.
Priority
The Examiner has noted the Applicant claiming Priority from Provisional Application 63/468,301 filed 05/23/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending of which:
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 4/25/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
New grounds for rejection 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong One:
Applicant argues on page 13 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“Generating user appointments based at least in part on a machine identifier, the machine
identifier identifying a machine associated with an appointment request, transmitting the user appointment to a user device and receiving a user response generated by an interaction between a user and a user interface of the user device, is not an abstract idea.
“…Amended claim 1 recites non-abstract and non-generic components and actions, as stated immediately above. A user device is recited as being communicatively connected to the processor and configured to receive the generated appointment and provide an interactive interface for the user to confirm or respond. In addition, a machine identifier identifying a machine is recited as one of the appointment attributes determined by the processor, ensuring that the appointment generation accounts for physical equipment constraints and enables consecutive appointments for requests associated with the same machine. This integration of a machine-specific identifier and user devices into the appointment generation process goes beyond abstract concepts or mental steps. The Applicant respectfully submits that the claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a process for generating user appointments by linking machine-specific
constraints, such as consecutive scheduling for shared machine identifiers, with interactive user-device communication that enables real-time transmission of appointment details and confirmation through a user interface.
“…The user appointment generation process is not an abstraction or a fundamental economic principle, nor can it be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper.
“…The Examiner has not provided an analysis of which claim limitations allegedly recite abstract ideas.
“…The claimed process directly governs the allocation of physical resources (i.e., machines identified by machine identifiers) and coordinates human presence at a specific time and place.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A list of the claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas can be found the in the Step 2A Prong One section of the 101 rejection below, followed by Examiner analysis of said limitations as to subject matter eligibility. Examiner submits that the presence of additional machine-based or computer-based elements, such as user devices and medical equipment as described by Applicant above, do not preclude the presence of an abstract idea in the claims. The analysis of additional elements and their potential practical application is reviewed in Step 2A Prong Two. Managing, prioritizing, and optimizing a schedule of appointments, regardless of the application of technology in doing so, falls within concepts which can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) under the abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III); as well as mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles (as optimizing schedules for salaried personnel and expensive medical equipment reduces financial risk) or business relations (between patients and healthcare providers) as they pertain to commercial or legal interactions, and managing interaction between people, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“…The Examiner contends that these [additional element] functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The Applicant respectfully disagrees with respect to the claims as amended.
“…Amended claim 1 integrates any such conceptual elements into a tangible technological process by requiring the processor to determine appointment attributes including a machine identifier identifying a machine, generate an appointment time based on calculated scores and provider attributes, transmit the appointment to a user device, and receive a user response through the device's interface.
“…Combined with transmitting the generated appointment to a user device and processing a user response through its interface, the claim creates a closed-loop system that connects backend scheduling logic with physical execution at the provider location. This system delivers a measurable improvement over conventional manual scheduling, which lacks automated machine-based sequencing and real-time confirmation, and represents a practical application of technology beyond any abstract idea.”
Continued on page 19: “Similarly [to USPTO Example 42], amended claim 1 recites a combination of additional elements including storing provider attributes in a database, receiving appointment requests over a network, determining appointment attributes and provider attributes including a machine identifier, calculating an appointment score based on multiple factors, generating an appointment time using optimization logic, transmitting the appointment to a user device, and receiving a user response through a user interface.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended do not appear to present any new additional elements beyond the original “database”, “processor”, and “user device”. Examiner notes the addition of the medical machines in the amended claim limitations; however, insofar as the medical machine is concerned, the claims only recite the “machine identifier”, which is merely data.
That said, according to Applicant Specification regarding the “database”, Examiner points to ¶ [0007]: “The system comprises: a database for storing provider attributes; and a processor in communication with the database”, and ¶ [0112]: “The storage component 210 can include one or more databases for storing data, such as, but not limited to data relating to provider attributes, data relating to appointment attributes and user profiles, including data related to user preferences and user attributes. The storage component 210 can additionally store algorithms and computer-executable instructions that can be executed by the processor 212 to schedule appointments.”
Insofar as Applicant Specification describes a “user device”, the claimed system transmits data and messages to the user via the user device, as well as receiving confirmation / communication from users via user devices. See description of a “user device” in conjunction with the “processor” at ¶ [0110].
According to Applicant Specification regarding the “processor”, various functions are described such as receiving appointment requests and confirmations (¶ [0007, 0020]); determining appointment times based on priority categories, appointment types, receive dates, and rankings (¶ [0008-0009]); search provider schedules (¶ [0010]); determine appointment times exceed wait targets (¶ [0011]); reassigning appointments (¶ [0021]); calculating appointment scores (¶ [0023]); etc. These functions, among other functions of the “processor”, “user device”, and “database” are recited at high levels of generality and not in any great technological detail.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer from Applicant Specification that the above additional elements are purely generic.
Regarding USPTO Example 42, the analysis allowing the subject matter to overcome Step 2A Prong Two included: “Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” However, similar to Applicant claims as amended, claim 2 of the example failed to integrate the judicial exception because, in part, “The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.”
Thus, these additional limitations, considered individually and in combination, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer or use the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues on page 18 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“…the additional elements in claim 1 provide "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception by delivering a technical improvement to the process of appointment scheduling and resource allocation in provider environments. The claimed system generates an actionable user appointment through the use of a processor, database, and user interface components….
“The improvement is not to a business model or economic transaction, but to a technological process of resource management. The system provides for appointment times generated dynamically based on calculated scores and machine constraints, rather than through manual or generic scheduling….
“…While processors and databases may individually be known elements, their claimed arrangement (where appointment requests are prioritized, scored based on multiple factors, and used to generate optimized appointment times that maximize compliance with wait time targets and assign consecutive times for requests tied to the same machine identifier) is not a conventional configuration.
“This architecture introduces a specific improvement to scheduling technology by integrating machine identifiers and optimization logic into the appointment generation process…. This unconventional configuration goes well beyond routine use of generic computing components and instead represents a technological solution to the technical problem of inefficient resource allocation and scheduling delays.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers Applicant’s assertion that the claimed system provides for appointment times generated dynamically based on calculated scores and machine constraints, rather than through manual or generic scheduling; however, Examiner notes that mere automation of a manual process is not in itself sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
While Examiner considers Applicant’s assertion that the claims introduce a specific improvement to scheduling, Examiner is not persuaded that the claims introduce a specific improvement to scheduling technology. According to Applicant Specification ¶ [0122], “machine identifier” is described as “Preferences relating to a machine can correspond to a provider preference to use a specific type of machine or a specific machine for certain types of appointments, over other machines having similar or the same functionalities”. Examiner submits that the use of optimization logic applied in a computer environment integrated with generic identification data such as this falls short of describing a significant improvement in technology. Inefficient resource allocation and scheduling delays, while addressed with a technical solution, are still inherently entrepreneurial or business challenges as opposed to technological challenges. Insufficient detail is apparent in the claims (as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two) as to the improvement to the actual computer technology involved in the system.
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues on page 24 of remarks 12/5/2025:
“The Applicant agrees with the Examiner's statement at page 16 of the Office Action that Peltz does not specifically teach assigning consecutive appointments of the same type.
“At page 16 of the Office Action, the Examiner relies on the Peled reference to teach this element. However, the features of amended claim 1, at least the ones highlighted above, are not taught, suggested or disclosed in Peled.
“…the claimed embodiment requires machine-specific continuity, not merely gap reduction based on time attractiveness or pricing factors.
“Peled does not teach or suggest using machine identifiers as a constraint in scheduling logic, nor does it disclose any mechanism for calculating an appointment score that incorporates machine-specific attributes and priority categories. Peled focuses on dynamic pricing, not on machine-level optimization or structured scoring for scheduling decisions.
“[The above] passage confirms that Peled's focus is on pricing adjustments, not on machine specific scheduling or priority-driven optimization. Peled does not contemplate consecutive appointments scheduled on the same machine.
“…Peled's "time gap factor" rewards or penalizes an appointment selection depending on whether it creates or removes a gap between scheduled appointments (Peled at paragraph [0051]). This adjustment is applied to the price of the slot, not to the scheduling logic itself.
“Moreover, Peled's pricing adjustments are reactive, they influence cost incentives for users but do not enforce scheduling decisions. The claimed invention, by contrast, uses machine identifiers as a constraint in generating appointment times, generating consecutive appointments on the same machine to minimize setup overhead and technician inefficiency….”
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments but finds them moot on new grounds. To cure the deficiencies of Peled described by Applicant above in light of the amendments to the claims, Examiner submits additional support from previously presented reference Warner and presents new reference Rothgang et al. US 20180294056 A1, hereinafter Rothgang. Scheduling appointments based on machines (medical devices, medical equipment, etc.) is further supported by Warner at ¶ [0057]. Machine specific continuity in scheduling appointments along with minimizing setup overhead and technician inefficiency is disclosed in Rothgang at ¶ [0025]. Rothgang also relieves the necessity for the previously presented reference Peled in teaching the dependent claims. Primary reference Peltz discloses the use of appointment scores in scheduling appointments based on provider attributes, and in modification / combination with secondary references Warner and Rothgang as analogous art to healthcare scheduling optimization, discloses the claims as amended.
Accordingly, new grounds for rejection 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments. Additional rationale and citations are provided in the 103 rejection section 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion), mitigating risk, agreements in the form of contracts, business relations, and managing interaction between people including: “receive a plurality of appointment requests, wherein each appointment request comprises an appointment type and a priority category for the appointment, each priority category associated with a corresponding wait time target”; “determine one or more appointment attributes relating to the appointment and a plurality of provider attributes associated with the appointment”; “calculate an appointment score based on the priority category, the appointment type and the one or more appointment attributes”; “generate a user appointment, wherein generating the user appointment comprises determining an appointment time based on the appointment score calculated and the plurality of provider attributes… wherein determining the appointment time comprises maximizing a number of appointment requests having appointment times within the corresponding wait time targets and assigning consecutive appointment times to two or more appointment requests associated with a same machine identifier”; “transmit the appointment time to a user”, “receive a user response to the appointment request from the user device, the user response generated by an interaction between a user and a user interface of the user device”; and “wherein at least one appointment attribute comprises a machine identifier… associated with the appointment request”. Managing, prioritizing, and optimizing a schedule of appointments falls within concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) under the abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III); as well as mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices and agreements in the form of contracts and business relations as they pertain to commercial or legal interactions, and managing interaction between people (scheduling appointments between medical professionals and patients), each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity2 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 19 recite the following additional elements: “database”, “processor”, and “user device”. The capabilities of these additional elements include examples such as storing provider attributes; receiving appointment requests; determining appointment attributes relating to provider attributes; calculating appointment scores based on priority, type, and attributes; and transmitting and receiving appointment times. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of storing, sending, and receiving data, calculating scores, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner also notes that mere automation of a manual process (scheduling patients with medical professionals and medical equipment) is not in itself sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Dependent claims 2-18, 20 do not appear to provide any additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Further, dependent claims 2-18, 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 19 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 19 and their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “database”, “processor”, and “user device” to capabilities such as determine, rank, generate, receive, assign, maximize, minimize, monitor, reassign, and identify various forms of data such as appointments, times, scores, rankings, waitlists, requests, types, time windows, time slots, confirmations, wait times, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-20 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Peltz US 20230170078 A1, hereinafter Peltz in view of
Warner et al. US 20090182575 A1, hereinafter Warner and in further view of
Rothgang et al. US 20180294056 A1, hereinafter Rothgang. As per,
Regarding claims 1, 19: Peltz teaches:
A system for generating one or more user appointments at a provider / a provider within network of two or more providers (claim 19 only) (Peltz ¶ [0041]), the system comprising: a database for storing provider attributes / provider attributes associated with each of the providers (claim 19 only) (Peltz ¶ [0073]); a processor in communication with the database (Peltz Fig. 9), the processor being operable to:
receive a plurality of appointment requests, wherein each appointment request comprises an appointment type and a priority category for the appointment, [..] (Peltz ¶ [0033]: As discussed herein, scheduling patients at optimal times can reduce wait lists, and text messages may optimize timeliness of rescheduling appointments while leveraging safety and privacy provided by telecommunication networks… in response to selecting a link in a text message, an electronic device may open another application such as an internet browser that may allow a patient to cancel, reschedule, and/or request/generate an appointment. ¶ [0028]: In one example, a provider might decide that they want to prioritize, for receiving the message, patients with preexisting appointments for flu shots. Preexisting appointments that include a "flu shot" appointment type or a key-phrase that signifies that an appointment includes a flu shot could be ranked to be higher priority. Such appointments would then rank higher, or highest, for receiving the message);
for each appointment request of the plurality of appointment requests, determine one or more appointment attributes relating to the appointment and a plurality of provider attributes associated with the appointment, based at least on the appointment request, [..] (Peltz ¶ [0039]: In one or more embodiments, a system may ask patients if they would like to see another provider with an open appointment in response to that provider having one or more attributes. Such attributes may be generated by the system, machine learning, and/or received from one or more patients. ¶ [0095]: Whether an appointment may be changed may be based on appointment attributes, which may include patient and/or provider attributes. ¶ [0097]: In STEP 612, appointment-slot combinations are filtered by provider preferences. For example, a provider may prefer a particular location, time, patient's health insurance, etc. If certain criteria are not met, the method will not proceed to STEP 614. Of course, appointment-slot combinations may be filtered by patient preferences such as whether they can/would like to travel to a certain distance from their home or work, whether the provider (e.g., obstetrician) is a male or female, or other attributes of a provider (e.g., location, type of health insurance accepted, etc.));
calculate an appointment score based on the priority category, the appointment type and the one or more appointment attributes relating to the appointment (Peltz mid-¶ [0027]: a patient may receive a message indicating that an earlier appointment is open, instead of other prospective patients, according to a ranking of the patients based on… the patient's health condition/ailment [EN: priority]… position on a waitlist [EN: priority], past patient attempts to reschedule [EN: priority]… appointment type, etc. The various ranking criteria may be weighted. The various criteria could be configured to either boost or penalize the ranking/priority score of the prospective patients being ranked for the opportunity to receive the message, and thus affect the likelihood of such patients to receive the message);
generate a user appointment, wherein generating the user appointment comprises determining an appointment time based on the appointment score calculated and the plurality of provider attributes (Peltz ¶ [0099]: In STEP 616, slot-appointment combinations are filtered based on provider preferences [EN: provider attributes]… slot appointment combinations with a score [at] or below a threshold amount are selected… messages are sent in an order based on the score ( or a ranking otherwise)… if a decision must be made between to slot-appointment combinations the one with the higher score is selected. Mid-¶ [0027]: a patient may receive a message indicating that an earlier appointment is open, instead of other prospective patients, according to a ranking of the patients based on… a type of provider's specialty [EN: attribute] … working hours of the provider [EN: attribute]… etc. The various ranking criteria may be weighted. The various criteria could be configured to either boost or penalize the ranking/priority score of the prospective patients being ranked for the opportunity to receive the message, and thus affect the likelihood of such patients to receive the message.); and
transmit the user appointment to a user device associated with the appointment request, the user appointment comprising the appointment time (Peltz mid-¶ [0027]: In one or more embodiments, in response to the received response from the patient accepting the earlier appointment, the system may reschedule the patient's preexisting appointment to the earlier time, location, and provider, and send a confirmation message to the patient (e.g., via SMS)); and
receive a user response to the appointment request from the user device, the user response generated by an interaction between a user and a user interface of the user device (see Peltz Fig. 2: patient replies yes, no, or skip to appointment request on user device. Also see related text),
wherein determining the appointment time comprises maximizing a number of appointment requests [..] (Peltz ¶ [0034]: In one or more embodiments, providers' schedules may be at least double or triple booked. For example, a provider may schedule 2 or more appointments for the same period of time, knowing they will be able to see all of the patients within that time period [EN: wait time target], or expecting one or more patients to not attend (e.g., a "no-show") or cancel their appointment. In one or more embodiments, systems and methods described herein may schedule and/or reschedule appointments differently based on policies associated with double or triple bookings…. As another example, if two appointments are cancelled which were scheduled during a triple booking time period, a system may ask one or more patients if they would like to reschedule their existing appointment with one of the cancelled appointments. Other methods may exist for maximizing efficiency when a provider uses double or triple booking),
[..] and wherein when the user response is an appointment confirmation, updating, by the processor, the database to record the user appointment at the provider (see Peltz Fig. 2: patient replies yes, no, or skip to appointment request on user device; and Fig. 4 element 410: appointments database. Also see related text).
Although Peltz teaches optimally scheduling users with providers based on attributes, priorities, and appointment scores, Peltz does not specifically teach schedule optimization based on wait time targets, appointment attributes comprising machine identifiers, or scheduling consecutive appointments based on machine identifiers.
However, Warner in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
each priority category associated with a corresponding wait time target (Warner End-¶ [0062]: An embodiment of the patient agents 518 can also track the property for a time of waiting and/or progression through the workflow. The properties 520 can also represent a maximum wait period for each patient, where the elapse of the maximum wait period automatically creates a highest priority status to the respective patient 510. ¶ [0070]: Step 645 includes the bidding engine 140 calculating the bid of each of the patient 105 for assignment to each slot in the schedule of operation of each resource 110, 112, 114 of the workflow, dependent on the priority statuses communicated from the agents 122, 124, 126, 127. As described above, the bidding engine 140 can be configured to calculate or generate bids of each resource 110, 112, 114 to a slot in the schedule workflow of each of the respective patients 105. ¶ [0071]: Assume for sake of example, that the patient 105 is admitted with chest pain, and the patient agent 127 is created to track a wait time or one or more symptoms of a heart attack, and step 620 includes identifying the physician 110 as the next critical resource in the workflow to treat the patient 105. Dependent on the priority statuses received by the bidding engine 140, the bidding engine 140 calculates the bid of the patient 105 to each slot of the schedule of the physician 110. Alternatively, the bidding engine 140 may calculate the bid of each patient 105 to be next in the schedule of the physician 110).
[..]
[..] wherein at least one appointment attribute comprises a machine identifier, the machine identifier identifying a machine associated with the appointment request (Warner mid-¶ [0057]: According to the tracked properties of each of the patients 310, the physician 312, clinician 314, technician 316, facility 320, medical device 322 or clinical device 324, the system 100 is operable to evaluate various combinations of scheduling the one more patients to one or more of the patient 310, the physician 312, clinician 314, technician 316, facility 320, medical device 322 or clinical device 324 employed among the various workflows (e.g., trauma, emergency, urgent care) described above that is most efficient (e.g., lowest patient wait time, largest throughput of admissions, etc.) in view of predicted trends calculated from historical data of the tracked properties of the physician 312, clinician 314, technician 316, facility 320, medical device 322 or clinical device 324 and of the patients 310 (e.g., peak demand at particular times, etc.))
[..] maximizing a number of appointment requests having appointment times within the corresponding wait time targets (Warner mid-¶ [0030]: A technical effect of the broker 150 is generally operable to optimize (e.g., reduce overall wait time of patients, allocate resources for greatest utilization, etc.) the workflow dependent on a series of factors, including the bids calculated or created for each resource 110, 112,114, the availability of resources 110, 112, 114, and the available viable options.
Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Warner’s teachings around correlating appointment priorities with wait time targets and schedule optimization based on wait time targets. The benefit of these additional features would have mitigated variation in demand and urgency and excess waiting by patients. (Warner ¶ [0005]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Furthermore, Rothgang in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
wherein determining the appointment time comprises [..] assigning consecutive appointment times to two or more appointment requests associated with a same machine identifier [..] (Rothgang ¶ [0025]: Preferably, an appointment is selected such that ideally no setup times occur, in that as far as possible successive appointment slots are selected for medical imaging processes having the same patient attribute. Preferably, the same patient attribute is the same body region, or the same scanning position on the medical imaging apparatus, in order thereby to minimize possible setup times. Identical patient attributes are preferably handled in sequence and in this way the operation of the medical imaging apparatus is organized more efficiently. For example, the same patient attributes can be applied using the same medical imaging process on two successive appointments or else also successively with a time delay, for example such that the same medical imaging processes are performed on two consecutive days. The advantage of this embodiment is a reduction in the setup times as well as a less intensive utilization of the acquisition coils and a reduction in the changeover times of the installations and a resulting reduction in the workload of the specialist medical staff).
Rothgang, Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz / Warner’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Rothgang’s teachings around assigning consecutive appointments of the same type for a machine. The benefit of these additional features would have facilitated higher utilization of the medical devices and a higher level of customer satisfaction thanks to shorter waiting times (Rothgang ¶ [0015]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 2: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
determine the appointment time based on one or more of the following factors: the priority category of the appointment request, the appointment type of the appointment request, an appointment receive date of the appointment request (Peltz mid-¶ [0027]: a patient may receive a message indicating that an earlier appointment is open, instead of other prospective patients, according to a ranking of the patients based on… the patient's health condition/ailment [EN: priority]… position on a waitlist [EN: priority], past patient attempts to reschedule [EN: priority]… appointment type, etc.).
Regarding claim 3: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein each of the factors, the appointment score and the provider attributes are ranked and wherein the processor is operable to determine the appointment time according to the ranking (Peltz end-¶ [0039]: In some embodiments, providers may be associated with a score (e.g., a quality score), and messages asking whether patients would like to be rescheduled for an appointment with a provider may only be sent to particular patients based on the provider's score. ¶ [0099]: In one or more embodiments, slot appointment combinations with a score or below a threshold amount are selected, and in some cases, messages may be sent to patients (e.g., who had the appointment) asking them if they'd like to reschedule to the time of the slot. In some embodiments, messages are sent in an order based on the score (or a ranking otherwise). In some embodiments, only a certain number of messages may be sent to patients. In one or more embodiments, if a decision must be made between to slot-appointment combinations the one with the higher score is selected).
Regarding claim 4: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
[..]
generate one or more waitlist comprising the corresponding one or more appointment requests (Peltz mid-¶ [0022]: In one or more embodiments described herein, systems link provider availability with patient demand by offering a prioritized waitlist of patients with the opportunity to claim open appointment times (also referred to as time slots), thereby significantly improving scheduling/rescheduling capabilities);
receive an appointment cancellation request associated with a cancelled appointment (Peltz mid-¶ [0033]: For example, a text message may contain a hyperlink (commonly referred to as a "link") allowing a patient to easily cancel or confirm a preexisting appointment, and/or reschedule a preexisting appointment); and
in response to receiving the appointment cancellation request, assigning the appointment time of the appointment to an appointment request selected from one of the one or more waitlist so that the appointment time for the appointment request is within the corresponding wait time target (Peltz ¶ [0070]: In STEP 360, a system automatically updates the provider's schedule 302 to reflect whether the appointment is either confirmed or cancelled by the patient. If the appointment was cancelled by the patient, the appointment is offered to another patient. Mid-¶ [0027]: a patient may receive a message [EN: having been selected] indicating that an earlier appointment is open, instead of other prospective patients, according to a ranking of the patients based on…a patient's expression of willingness or interest in an earlier appointment or position on a waitlist….).
Although Peltz teaches optimally scheduling users with providers based on attributes, priorities, and appointment scores, Peltz does not specifically teach determining that a wait time target is exceeded.
However, Warner in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
determine that one or more appointment times exceed the wait time target of a corresponding one or more appointment requests (Warner ¶ [0073]: As the agent 127 tracks an increase in the wait time of the first patient 105 to receive an examination by the physician 110, step 680 includes the bidding engine 140 increasing the bid of the first patient 105 relative to others that have less waiting time to receive an examination by the physician 110. Step 685 includes the agent 127 detecting and communicating that the wait time of the first patient 105 to see the physician 110 has exceeded a threshold);
Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Warner’s teachings around determining that a wait time target is exceeded. The benefit of these additional features would have mitigated variation in demand and urgency and excess waiting by patients. (Warner ¶ [0005]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 5: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more waitlist is a ranked waitlist according to one of: the appointment score of each of the one or more appointment request and a corresponding wait time of each of the one or more appointment request (Peltz mid-¶ [0022]: In one or more embodiments described herein, systems link provider availability with patient demand by offering a prioritized waitlist of patients with the opportunity to claim open appointment times (also referred to as time slots), thereby significantly improving scheduling/rescheduling capabilities. End-¶ [0027]: The various ranking criteria may be weighted. The various criteria could be configured to either boost or penalize the ranking/priority score of the prospective [EN: waitlisted] patients being ranked for the opportunity to receive the message, and thus affect the likelihood of such patients to receive the message).
Regarding claim 6: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein determining the appointment time comprises determining the appointment time for two or more appointment requests at a predetermined time interval (Peltz ¶ [0034]: In one or more embodiments, providers' schedules may be at least double or triple booked. For example, a provider may schedule 2 or more appointments for the same period of time, knowing they will be able to see all of the patients within that time period, or expecting one or more patients to not attend (e.g., a "no-show") or cancel their appointment).
Regarding claim 7: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Peltz teaches optimally scheduling users with providers based on attributes, priorities, and appointment scores, Peltz does not specifically teach assigning consecutive appointments of the same type.
However, Rothgang in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
wherein determining the appointment time comprises assigning consecutive appointment times to two or more appointment requests associated with a same appointment type (Rothgang ¶ [0025]: Preferably, an appointment is selected such that ideally no setup times occur, in that as far as possible successive appointment slots are selected for medical imaging processes having the same patient attribute. Preferably, the same patient attribute is the same body region, or the same scanning position on the medical imaging apparatus, in order thereby to minimize possible setup times. Identical patient attributes are preferably handled in sequence and in this way the operation of the medical imaging apparatus is organized more efficiently. For example, the same patient attributes can be applied using the same medical imaging process on two successive appointments or else also successively with a time delay, for example such that the same medical imaging processes are performed on two consecutive days. The advantage of this embodiment is a reduction in the setup times as well as a less intensive utilization of the acquisition coils and a reduction in the changeover times of the installations and a resulting reduction in the workload of the specialist medical staff).
Rothgang, Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz / Warner’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Rothgang’s teachings around assigning consecutive appointments of the same type. The benefit of these additional features would have facilitated higher utilization of the medical devices and a higher level of customer satisfaction thanks to shorter waiting times (Rothgang ¶ [0015]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 8: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein determining the appointment time further comprises maximizing a number of appointments within a predefined time window (Peltz ¶ [0034]: In one or more embodiments, providers' schedules may be at least double or triple booked. For example, a provider may schedule 2 or more appointments for the same period of time, knowing they will be able to see all of the patients within that time period [EN: wait time target], or expecting one or more patients to not attend (e.g., a "no-show") or cancel their appointment. In one or more embodiments, systems and methods described herein may schedule and/or reschedule appointments differently based on policies associated with double or triple bookings…. As another example, if two appointments are cancelled which were scheduled during a triple booking time period, a system may ask one or more patients if they would like to reschedule their existing appointment with one of the cancelled appointments. Other methods may exist for maximizing efficiency when a provider uses double or triple booking).
Regarding claim 9: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Peltz teaches optimally scheduling users with providers based on attributes, priorities, and appointment scores, Peltz does not specifically teach minimizing unused time in a predetermined time slot.
However, Rothgang in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
wherein determining the appointment time further comprises minimizing an unused time of a predetermined time slot (Rothgang ¶ [0025]: Preferably, an appointment is selected such that ideally no setup times occur, in that as far as possible successive appointment slots are selected for medical imaging processes having the same patient attribute. Preferably, the same patient attribute is the same body region, or the same scanning position on the medical imaging apparatus, in order thereby to minimize possible setup times. Identical patient attributes are preferably handled in sequence and in this way the operation of the medical imaging apparatus is organized more efficiently. For example, the same patient attributes can be applied using the same medical imaging process on two successive appointments or else also successively with a time delay, for example such that the same medical imaging processes are performed on two consecutive days. The advantage of this embodiment is a reduction in the setup times as well as a less intensive utilization of the acquisition coils and a reduction in the changeover times of the installations and a resulting reduction in the workload of the specialist medical staff).
Rothgang, Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz / Warner’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Rothgang’s teachings around minimizing unused time in a predetermined time slot. The benefit of these additional features would have facilitated higher utilization of the medical devices and a higher level of customer satisfaction thanks to shorter waiting times (Rothgang ¶ [0015]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner and Rothgang above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 10: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein determining the appointment is based on a relative importance of the appointment score calculated and each of the provider attributes (Peltz mid-¶ [0027]: a patient may receive a message indicating that an earlier appointment is open, instead of other prospective patients, according to a ranking of the patients based on… a type of provider's specialty [EN: attribute] … working hours of the provider [EN: attribute]… etc. The various ranking criteria may be weighted. The various criteria could be configured to either boost or penalize the ranking/priority score of the prospective patients being ranked for the opportunity to receive the message, and thus affect the likelihood of such patients to receive the message).
Regarding claim 11: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein for each of the appointment requests, the processor is operable to:
monitor for the appointment confirmation from the user device in response to the user appointment transmitted to the user device; and if the appointment confirmation is not received within a predetermined time period, assign the appointment time to one or more other appointment requests (Peltz mid-¶ [0030]: The patients may be messaged one by one according to their rank order. If the first patient responds with a decline or a response time period lapses, then the next highly ranked patient may be messaged, and so on).
Regarding claim 12: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
determine that assigning the appointment time of a first appointment request to a second appointment request causes a reduction in a combined wait time; and reassign the appointment time of the first appointment request to the second appointment request (Peltz ¶ [0005]: In general, in one aspect, embodiments relate to a method for optimizing time slot yield rates. The method can include: determining that an earlier time slot has become available; identifying a set of users corresponding with preexisting time slots scheduled for a time later than the available earlier time slot; ranking the set of users according to ranking criteria; selecting, based on ranking the set of users, a subset of top ranked users eligible for the available time slot; sending a set of messages to the subset of users indicating that the earlier time slot is available; receiving a message from a first user of the subset of users indicating that the first user is willing to replace their corresponding preexisting time slot with the available earlier time slot; and replacing the first user's corresponding preexisting time slot with the available earlier time slot).
Regarding claim 13: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Peltz teaches optimally scheduling users with providers based on attributes, priorities, and appointment scores, Peltz does not specifically teach moving an appointment up in the schedule when a threshold wait time is exceeded.
However, Warner in analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization teaches or suggests:
determine that the appointment time of associated with an appointment request exceeds the wait time target of the appointment request by a threshold wait time; and in response to determining that the appointment time exceeds the wait time target, determine a revised appointment time for the appointment request, wherein the revised appointment time reduces a wait time associated with the appointment request (Warner ¶ [0073]: As the agent 127 tracks an increase in the wait time of the first patient 105 to receive an examination by the physician 110, step 680 includes the bidding engine 140 increasing the bid of the first patient 105 relative to others that have less waiting time to receive an examination by the physician 110. Step 685 includes the agent 127 detecting and communicating that the wait time of the first patient 105 to see the physician 110 has exceeded a threshold. In response, step 690 includes the bidding engine 140 adjusting the bid of the first patient 105 to exceed the bids of others waiting see the physician 110. According to the change in the bid of the first patient 105, the broker 150 assigns the first patient 105 to be assigned the next available slot in the schedule of the physician 110 relative to other patients waiting to see the physician 110).
Warner and Peltz are found as analogous art of healthcare scheduling optimization. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Peltz’s time slot yield rate optimization system and method to have included Warner’s teachings around moving an appointment up in the schedule when a threshold wait time is exceeded. The benefit of these additional features would have mitigated variation in demand and urgency and excess waiting by patients. (Warner ¶ [0005]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Peltz in view of Warner (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of healthcare scheduling optimization. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Peltz in view of Warner above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 14: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
determine that modifying the appointment time of one or more appointment requests causes a reduction in a combined wait time; determine a revised appointment time for one or more of the one or more appointment requests, wherein the revised appointment time reduces the combined wait time (Peltz ¶ [0005]: In general, in one aspect, embodiments relate to a method for optimizing time slot yield rates. The method can include: determining that an earlier time slot has become available; identifying a set of users corresponding with preexisting time slots scheduled for a time later than the available earlier time slot; ranking the set of users according to ranking criteria; selecting, based on ranking the set of users, a subset of top ranked users eligible for the available time slot; sending a set of messages to the subset of users indicating that the earlier time slot is available; receiving a message from a first user of the subset of users indicating that the first user is willing to replace their corresponding preexisting time slot with the available earlier time slot; and replacing the first user's corresponding preexisting time slot with the available earlier time slot).
Regarding claims 15, 20: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claims 1,19 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein for each of the appointment requests, the processor is further operable to:
identify a user profile associated with the appointment request (Peltz ¶ [0075]: In one or more embodiments, system 400 may include an appointments database 410 and/or a patients database 415… appointments may include some or all potential appointments and preexisting appointments, provider schedules, location schedules, etc. Patients database 415 may include a patient's preexisting appointments, and/or other patient information such as health information, health insurance information, etc. ¶ [0046]: …Metadata [EN: profile] may include patient information such as a patient's contact information, relative information, location information, family health history, health information, genetic information, etc.);
determine appointment preferences for the appointment based on the user profile (Peltz mid-¶ [0097]: Of course, appointment-slot combinations may be filtered by patient [EN: user] preferences such as whether they can/would like to travel to a certain distance from their home or work, whether the provider (e.g., obstetrician) is a male or female, or other attributes of a provider (e.g., location, type of health insurance accepted, etc.).),
the appointment preferences comprising preferences relating to the two or more providers (claim 20 only) (Peltz ¶ [0039]: In one or more embodiments, a system may ask patients if they would like to see another provider with an open appointment in response to that provider having one or more attributes. Such attributes may be generated by the system, machine learning, and/or received from one or more patients. ¶ [0095]: Whether an appointment may be changed may be based on appointment attributes, which may include patient and/or provider attributes.; and
determine the appointment time based on the appointment preferences (Peltz ¶ [0100]: In STEP 618, suggestions for available appointments are sent to patients. Available appointments are appointments where a slot-combination [EN: appointment time] has been determined, and in some cases, has been filtered based on provider preferences and/or has a score above or below a threshold amount).
Regarding claim 16: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein the plurality of provider attributes comprise two or more of: operating times of the provider, predefined times for the appointment type, predefined times for priority categories, predefined times for the appointment attributes, preferences relating to a machine required for the appointment, personnel required for the appointment, a duration of the appointment based on the machine required for the appointment, policies relating to the appointment type and a relative importance of the provider attributes (Peltz mid-¶ [0097]: …appointment-slot combinations may be filtered by patient preferences such as… attributes of a provider (e.g., location, type of health insurance accepted [EN: policy], etc.). ¶ [0039]: …a system may ask patients if they would like to see another provider with an open appointment in response to that provider having one or more attributes.… For example, messages asking patients whether they would like to reschedule their appointments to be with another provider may only be sent to patients that need the type of specialty service that provider provides [EN: required personnel and equipment]. Mid-¶ [0040]: …based on one or more provider's availabilities [EN: operating and/or predefined times] and/or patient characteristics (e.g., language spoken, location, specific health issue), one or more patients may have their preexisting appointments automatically rescheduled such that they are with the new provider(s)).
Regarding claim 17: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein the priority category for the appointment is one of a first priority category associated with a first wait time target, a second priority category associate with a second wait time target, a third priority category associated with a third wait time target and a fourth priority category associated with a fourth wait time target, wherein the fourth wait time target corresponds to a time period longer than the third wait time target, the third wait time target corresponds to a time period longer than the second wait time target, and the second wait time target corresponds to a time period longer than the first wait time target (Peltz mid-¶ [0097]: In STEP 614, each appointment-slot is assigned a score based on a value it adds. For example, an appointment slot score may be higher if the appointment is for a week away, the slot is for two days away, the slot is at the same location with the same provider, etc., and an appointment slot score may be lower if the appointment is two days away at 10:00 a.m., the slot is two days away at 9:30 a.m., the slot is at a less preferable location (e.g., far from the patient's home or work), the slot is with a different provider, etc. Of course, these are just some examples of attributes of slots and appointments that may be considered when assigning a score, and many more are contemplated).
Regarding claim 18: Peltz / Warner / Rothgang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Peltz further teaches:
wherein the priority category for the appointment is one of a first priority category associated with a wait time target of 24 hours, a second priority category associate with a wait time target of 48 hours, a third priority category associated with a wait time target of 10 days and a fourth priority category associated with a wait time target of 28 days (Peltz mid-¶ [0097]: In STEP 614, each appointment-slot is assigned a score based on a value it adds. For example, an appointment slot score may be higher if the appointment is for a week away, the slot is for two days [EN: 48 hours] away, the slot is at the same location with the same provider, etc., and an appointment slot score may be lower if the appointment is two days [EN: 48 hours] away at 10:00 a.m., the slot is two days [EN: 48 hours] away at 9:30 a.m., the slot is at a less preferable location (e.g., far from the patient's home or work), the slot is with a different provider, etc. Of course, these are just some examples of attributes of slots and appointments that may be considered when assigning a score, and many more are contemplated).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Gonçalves, Bruno S., et al. "A systematized approach for reduction of medical appointment waiting list." Production 32 (2022): e20210137.
https://www.scielo.br/j/prod/a/Kc3VRdgKnxkxNRt7BZLDfWD/
Rose WO 2006020321 A2, System and method for directly scheduling health care patient appointments.
Alberto Andres Ocampo Rios et al. NL 2020259 B1, A method of, and system for improved operating room scheduling.
Siva US 20160239614 A1, System and Method for Optimizing and Streamlining the Interaction and Relationship Between Patients and Healthcare Providers with a Smart Search Process.
Cinnor; Fitih et al. US 20200151634 A1, Methods for Probabilistic Demand/Supply Matching and Designing Scheduling Decision Support Systems and Schedulers.
Larsen; Steven J. et al. US 20060047552 A1, Smart appointment recall method and apparatus.
Hanson; Mark et al. US 20200227161 A1, Health management system.
Bender; Michael et al. US 20200090132 A1, Cognitive appointment scheduling and management integrating IoT data.
Luzon; Yossef et al. US 20100042726 A1, Fluid based resource allocation and appointment scheduling system and method.
Seymour; Calvin et al. US 20120053963 A1, System for Dynamically Scheduling Medical Facility Appointments.
Kaufman; Aaron US 20140249878 A1, Appointment scheduling.
Weinberg; Andrew Mark US 20210216971 A1, Method for Customizable Priority Wait List Notification for Appointments.
Tompkins; Ronald G. et al. US 20170024704 A1, System and method for scheduling appointments.
Dewane; Thomas Daniel US 20150286992 A1, Appointment Scheduling System and Tool.
Gharaybeh; Zaid et al. US 20240069963 A1, Goal Oriented Intelligent Scheduling System.
Fuhrmann; David E. et al. US 20060047553 A1, Utilization indicating schedule scanner.
Sanderford; Shelby et al. US 20170124526 A1, System and method for scheduling patient appointments.
Sampson; Evan et al. US 20150235183 A1, Computer-implemented method and system for scheduling appointments with clients.
Jagannathan; Sridhar et al. US 8849689 B1, Method and system for providing dynamic appointment scheduling and tracking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
February 18, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 February 19, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
2 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.