DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the request for continued examination filed on July 13, 2026. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-3, 9, and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to schedule a task/procedure for mobile service provider, similar to a person recognizing the current time, their current location, and planned appointment to determine their availability for said planned appointment. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the claims are analogous to those of Thales Visionix as they recite a specific method of using sensor data to improve the accuracy and efficiency of computer-based mobile service scheduling systems. However, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technology. The problem of dynamic/efficient/real-time scheduling was not a problem cause by a computer (or scheduling system), is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. Applicant’s assertion that the location-based scheduling is inherent to technology is not persuasive as most, if not all, scheduling appointments between two or more people necessarily involve disparate/remote locations and the determination thereof. For instance, a contractor/service provider or a customer can be early or late to an appointment based on extraneous circumstances and can notify the homeowner or business of their ability to be seen earlier or need to reschedule in real-time. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a management problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Furthermore, unlike the decision of Thales, the present claims do not specify a particular configuration of sensors nor a particular method of using the received data to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object in a non-conventional manner. Contrary to the claims of Thales, there is no recited unconventional utilization of sensors. Rather, the claims merely recite a “sensor” and fails to describe the sensor with any level of particularity and is thus recited at a high level of generality. Insomuch as the Applicant refers to [0070] and [0101] in their specification that the sensor may be a global positioning system, network location system, Wi-Fi positioning system, or any other suitable location sensor or system, the various components are recited as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, and therefore, are not recited with a sufficient degree of particularity (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more).
Insomuch as Applicant asserts a nonconventional use of the sensor data by conditionally determining when to use the sensor data, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees. As a first matter, it is noted that while the claims recite a single conditional use of the sensor data, the claims do not preclude the use of the sensor data in any other condition. Furthermore, the use (and/or non-use) of the sensor data are similar to the mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type determined to insignificant extra-solution activities as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the previous 101 rejection is maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejection, Applicant argues Parash fails to teach “determining a remaining time period from a current time to a first time slot of a plurality of time slots for the procedure; and in response to the remaining time period being equal to or shorter than a predetermined time period, determining a first estimated travel time based on a distance from the current location of the positional information to a service location of the procedure”. Applicant further states that Parash does not condition the source of a travel time calculation on the temporal proximity of a candidate time slot to the current time slot, and therefore, does not teach the newly added claim limitation. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Parash teaches a method/system for scheduling tasks/appointments that takes into consideration the professional’s current location and scheduled appointment to estimate a delay and further teaches determining a likelihood that the delay will interfere with the task, wherein the determination can be based on current traffic data to estimate an approximate arrival time (e.g., see [0151]-[0165]). Accordingly, Parash teaches the claimed limitation.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 recite a method of scheduling, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 12-22 recite a system for diagnosing for scheduling, which is within the statutory class of a machine.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-22, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1 and 12 (claim 1 being representative)
receiving a scheduling request for a procedure of a patient, the procedure configured to occur inside of, in proximity to, or in connection with the mobile vehicle; obtaining scheduling information for the mobile vehicle corresponding to a preferred provider; dynamically receiving the positional information from a sensor in communication with the one or more computing devices associated with the mobile vehicle, the positional information comprising a current location of the mobile vehicle; determining a remaining time period from a current time to a first time slot of a plurality of time slots for the procedure; in response to the remaining time period being equal to or shorter than a predetermined time period, determining a first estimated travel time based on a distance from the current location of the positional information to a service location of the procedure; determining a first production per drive score for the first time slot based on a production yield for the procedure, the first estimated travel time, a procedure time for the procedure, and the positional information; determining a first availability level indication of the first time slot for the procedure based on the first production per drive score of the first time slot for the procedure and the scheduling information; dynamically display the first availability level indication on a graphical user interface; schedule the procedure for a scheduled time slot of the plurality of time slots based on the first availability level indication and the first production per drive score; dynamically transmit, to the mobile vehicle, procedure information comprising the scheduled time slot; and displaying the procedure information on the graphical user interface.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to retrieve and process data in the manner described in the abstract idea in order to schedule an appointment for a mobile provider/technician/employee. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a sensor”, “a computing device”, “a graphical user interface”, "a memory”, “a processor”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Receiving position information from “a mobile vehicle” is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Similarly, insomuch as a sensor is deemed not a generic computer component, it is also recited at a high level of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a sensor”, “computing device”, “a graphical user interface”, "a memory”, “a processor”—see Specification Fig. 2, [0053]-[0056], [0070], [0101] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of receiving position information from “a mobile vehicle” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see [0070]) indicates that sensors for retrieving position information of a mobile vehicle is done using coordinate or GPS, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claim 5 (16) merely recites the use of color to indicate availability, Claims 8, 10-11 (19-22) merely recites providing a list of available providers to the user based on the user profile and provider service area, claim 9 merely recites using updated information for the scheduling, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). Claims 2-4, (13-15) merely recite various calculations for determining the scheduling request, which covers mathematical concepts, mental processes, or method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). Claims 6-7 (17-18) determining a second production per drive score and updating availability, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parash et al. (USPPN: 2020/0210963; hereinafter Parash).
As to claim 1, Parash teaches A method for using positional information for a mobile vehicle to generate dynamic scheduling (e.g., see Title, [0002], [0148]), comprising steps of:
receiving a scheduling request for a procedure of a patient, the procedure configured to occur inside of, in proximity to, or in connection with the mobile vehicle (e.g., see [0099], [0101], [0518] teaching receiving a scheduling request for an onsite visit (i.e., in connection with a mobile vehicle), wherein the request can include requests for medical professionals);
obtaining scheduling information for the mobile vehicle corresponding to a preferred provider (e.g., see [0118], [0352] teaching obtaining schedule information of more than one professional, including a preferred professional);
dynamically receiving the positional information from a sensor in communication with one or more computing devices associated with the mobile vehicle, the positional information comprising a current location of the mobile vehicle (e.g., see [0118], [0305], [0309], [0518] teaching receiving current location of the professional and/or their vehicle using sensors);
determining a remaining time period from a current time to a first time slot of a plurality of time slots for the procedure (e.g., see [0155]-[0156] wherein real-time schedule information includes the current time and scheduled arrival time. While Parash fails to explicitly teach “remaining time period”, Parash nonetheless teaches using the real-time data to determine the existence of an unplanned event likely to interfere with the task using the current time and scheduled arrival time to determine if the professional may be delayed, which would obviously, if not necessarily require the determination of the “remaining time period”);
in response to the remaining time period being equal to or shorter than a predetermined time period, determining a first estimated travel time based on a distance from the current location of the positional information to a service location of the procedure (e.g., see [0158]-[0161], [0165] wherein upon the determination of an existence of a delay, the system calculates possibles routes to determine the predicted arrival time);
determining a first production per drive score for a first time slot of a plurality of time slots for the procedure based on a production yield for the procedure, a first estimated travel time to the procedure, a procedure time for the procedure, and the positional information (e.g., see [0173]-[0176], [0189], [0288], [0342], [0343] wherein scheduling a task for a timeslot includes calculating a score comprised of various weights of various criterion including factors such as cost, travel distance, pay, procedure time, scheduling constraints including distance, time, location between professional and appointment, etc.);
determining a first availability level indication of the first time slot for the procedure based on the first production per drive score of the first time slot for the procedure and the scheduling information (e.g., see [0205], [0208], [0341]- [0344] wherein a scheduling cost associated with the possible time slots are determined by taking into consideration the costs including driving duration, pay, number of tasks and expected completion time, and available professionals, etc.);
dynamically displaying the first availability level indication on a graphical user interface (e.g., see [0134]-[0135], [0319] wherein updates/changes to the scheduling is updated in real-time);
scheduling the procedure for a scheduled time slot of the plurality of time slots based on the first availability level indication and the first production per drive score (e.g., see [0341]-[0342], [0346]-[0347], [0361] the scheduling cost is determined for multiple potential time slots, wherein the scheduling cost takes into consideration the costs of driving duration, pay, takes, expected completion time, and available professionals and upon determination scheduling cost for a time slot is at an acceptable threshold, the time slot can be scheduled for the appointment);
dynamically transmitting, to the mobile vehicle, procedure information comprising the scheduled time slot (e.g., see [0119], [0200], [0304] wherein task and scheduling information is provided to a user); and
displaying the procedure information on the graphical user interface (e.g., see Fig. 40, [0119], [0200], [0304], [0468] wherein task and scheduling information is provided to a user).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parash further teaches wherein the scheduling request comprises the service location of the procedure, wherein the procedure information further comprises the service location (e.g. see [0304], [0342], [0373], wherein the scheduling request includes the task and address and the estimated travel time is based on the current location and service location and the task includes the service address).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parash further teaches wherein the first availability level indication is displayed using a color corresponding to the first availability level indication (e.g., see [0135] teaching the use of colors for indicators, including for scheduling issues).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parash further teaches, further comprising: dynamically determining a second production per drive score for a second time slot of the plurality of time slots for the procedure based on the production yield for the procedure, a second estimated travel time to the procedure, and the procedure time for the procedure (e.g., see [0173]-[0176], [0189], [0288], [0342], [0343] wherein scheduling a task for a timeslot includes calculating a score for one or more time slots comprised of various weights of various criterion including factors such as cost, travel distance, pay, procedure time, scheduling constraints including distance, time, location between professional and appointment, etc.)
dynamically determining a second availability level indication of the second time slot for the procedure based on the second production per drive score of the second time slot for the procedure (e.g., see [0205], [0208], [0341]- [0344] wherein a scheduling cost associated with the possible time slots are determined by taking into consideration the costs including driving duration, pay, number of tasks and expected completion time, and available professionals, etc.); and
dynamically displaying the second availability level indication on a graphical user interface, wherein the scheduling request comprises a service location of the procedure, and wherein the second estimated travel time is determined based on a previous location of a previous procedure and the service location of the procedure (e.g., see [0134]-[0135], [0304], [0319], [0353], [0373] wherein updates/changes to the scheduling is updated in real-time and the scheduling request includes the task address and the estimated travel time is based on the preceding appointment location and the new task request address), and
wherein scheduling the procedure for the scheduled time slot is further based on the second availability level indication and the second production per drive score (e.g., see [0341]-[0342], [0346]-[0347] the scheduling cost is determined for multiple potential time slots, wherein the scheduling cost takes into consideration the costs of driving duration, pay, takes, expected completion time, and available professionals and upon determination scheduling cost for a time slot is at an acceptable threshold, the time slot is output for scheduling the appointment).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Parash further teaches wherein the second availability level indication of the second time slot for the procedure is further determined based on the second estimated travel time, wherein in response to the second time slot for the procedure being within the second estimated travel time after a previous time slot for the previous procedure or a dynamic travel time to travel from the current location of the positional information to the service location, the second availability level indication of the second time slot indicates unavailability for the procedure (e.g., see [0353], [0354] wherein a no-available-time-slot notification is provided when the distance or duration to travel to the task is greater than a threshold or results in too much lost productivity).
As to claims 12, 13, and 16-18, the claims are directed to the system implementing the method of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parash, as applied above, and in further view of Sebastian (“What is the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)”, [online], Dec 2019, retrieved from internet; hereinafter Sebastian).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. While Parash teaches calculating a score based on numerous factors including costs, travel distance, pay, procedure time, scheduling constraints including distance, time, location between professional and appointment, etc., Parash fails to teach wherein the first production per drive score is determined by: a computation of the production yield divided by a combination of the first estimated travel time and the procedure time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of project management, Sebastian teaches wherein the first production per drive score is determined by: a computation of the production yield divided by a combination of the first estimated travel time and the procedure time, wherein the production yield comprises a monetary value (e.g., see benefit-cost ration formula wherein the present value is based on the ratio of the total benefits over a time period to total cost for the time period. See also [0342] of Parash wherein the score includes monetary expenses). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Parash in view of Sebastian to consider absolute amounts of benefits and costs and help facilitate project investments.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Parash teaches calculating a scheduling cost associated with the possible time slots are determined by taking into consideration the costs including driving duration, pay, number of tasks and expected completion time, and available professionals, etc., and further teaches determining the first availability level indication by comparing the availability score with one or more thresholds (e.g., see [0346[ wherein the scheduling costs of different time slots are compared to a threshold).
Parash fails to teach wherein determining the first availability level indication of the first time slot comprises the steps of: calculating an availability score by the first production per drive score divided by a production per unit time score.
However, in the same field of endeavor of project management, Sebastian teaches wherein determining the first availability level indication of the first time slot comprises the steps of: calculating an availability score by the first production per drive score divided by a production per unit time score (e.g., see benefit-cost ration formula wherein the present value is based on the ratio of the total benefits over a time period to total cost for the time period). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Parash in view of Sebastian to consider absolute amounts of benefits and costs and help facilitate project investments.
As to claims 14-15, the claims are directed to the system implementing the method of claims 3-4 and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parash, as applied above, and in further view of Arshad et al. (USPPN: 2017/0011192; hereinafter Arshad).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. While Paraesh teaches that a preferred professional may be provided, Parash fails to teach displaying a plurality of providers based on a profile of the patient; and receiving an input indicative of the preferred provider among the plurality of providers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of scheduling services, Arshad teaches displaying a plurality of providers based on a profile of the patient (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0189], [0239] wherein a user is provided a list of providers based on their patient data and/or preferences); and receiving an input indicative of the preferred provider among the plurality of providers (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0239]-[0241] wherein a user can select a preferred provider). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Parash in view of Arshad with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to quickly and easily schedule users with appropriate professionals.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Parash further teaches in response to an updated to the positional information from the sensor: dynamically updating the first production per drive score and the first availability level indication based on the updated positional information (e.g., see [0173]-[0176], [0189], [0288], [0342], [0343] wherein scheduling a task for a timeslot includes calculating a score comprised of various weights of various criterion including factors such as cost, travel distance, pay, procedure time, scheduling constraints including distance, time, location between professional and appointment, etc., wherein the data can be received in real time), and dynamically updating the display of the first availability level indication on the graphical user interface (e.g., see Fig. 40, [0119], [0200], [0304], [0468] wherein task and scheduling information is provided to a user based on data received in real time).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Parash further teaches receiving information for the plurality of providers, the information for the plurality of providers comprising service area indications corresponding to the plurality of providers (e.g., see [0225] wherein the professionals may be associated with a corresponding service area).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Parash further teaches wherein the scheduling request comprises a procedure indication of the procedure, wherein the production yield and the procedure time are determined based on the procedure indication, and wherein the procedure information further comprises the procedure indication of the procedure (e.g., see [0224], [0314], [0343] wherein the task can be of different types with varying times for completion).
As to claims 19-22, the claims are directed to the system implementing the method of claims 8-11 and are similarly rejected.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights