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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 18 February 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 have been amended; Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/512,799 dated 10 July 2023.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
determine at least one of a respective predicted duration or a respective predicted end time for each of a plurality of current medical procedures of a medical facility;
monitor respective data associated with each of the plurality of current medical procedures during each of the plurality of current medical procedures;
determine that a respective event occurs in at least two of the plurality of current medical procedures based on the respective data associated with each of the plurality of current medical procedures;
determine at least one of a respective revised predicted duration or a respective revised predicted end time of each of the at least two of the plurality of current medical procedures based on the respective event occurring; and
output a respective scheduling indication for each of a plurality of subsequent medical procedures of the medical facility based on at least one of the at least one respective revised predicted duration or revised predicted end time.
The Examiner understands the claim to require that the “respective event” is the same event that occurs in two of the medical procedures and that revised duration / end time is based on the same event occurring in the two medical procedures.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system, method, and computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for scheduling medical procedures which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) store at least one of a respective predicted duration or a respective predicted end time of a plurality of current medical procedures; determine at least one of the respective predicted duration or the respective predicted end time for each of the plurality of current medical procedures of a medical facility; monitor respective data associated with each of the current medical procedures during each of the plurality of current medical procedures; determine that a respective event occurs in at least two of the plurality of current medical procedures based on the respective data associated with each of the plurality of current medical procedures, the at least two of the plurality of current medical procedures, the at least two of the plurality of current medical procedures comprising a first current medical procedure and a second current medical procedure; determine at least one of a respective revised predicted duration or a revised predicted end time of the current medical procedures based on the respective event occurring; and output a respective scheduling indication for each of a plurality of subsequent medical procedures of the medical facility based on the at least one of the respective revised predicted duration or the respective revised predicted end time, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to adjust the timing of subsequent medical procedures at a medical facility when an event that affects the length of a at least two medical procedures occur (see Spec. Para. 0024 describing adjusting a procedure timeframe as a human activity, i.e., an activity performed by scheduling staff) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “store…determine…monitor…determine…determine…and output” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of (Claim 1) a system comprising memory/processing circuitry, (Claim 19) a method implemented by processing circuitry, or (Claim 20) a CRM / processor that implement the identified abstract idea. These items are not exclusively described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components; see Spec. Para. 0070) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using Claim 1) a system comprising memory/processing circuitry, (Claim 19) a method implemented by processing circuitry, or (Claim 20) a CRM / processor to perform the noted steps amounts 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 (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-17 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) the event timeframe, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) the event, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) the type of associated data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) the current medical procedure, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) adding or removing phases from the surgical schedule, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) how the prediction occurs, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) determining the status of an event and providing a prompt accordingly.
Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) how the predicted or revised duration occurs, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 9 further recites training a machine learning model on particular data (e.g., image data, user input data, etc.). The type of training utilized by the claimed invention is not exclusively described by the Applicant (see Spec. Para. 0111). As such the Examiner is required to analyze the training step given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The step(s) performed to train the model is/are considered to be part of the abstract idea because it/they fall(s) under data manipulations that humans perform (i.e., fitting a model to data) and thus are interpreted to be part of the abstraction--the rules or instructions that fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 12 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that “[i]terative training using selected training material…are incident to the very nature of machine learning.”).
The utilization of the trained machine learning model (described in the Spec. at Para. 0106 as known deep learning models) represents instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer, which is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more. See also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 17 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that applying machine learning to an abstract idea does not transform a claim into something significantly more).
Claim(s) 10, 11 merely describe(s) rescheduling of subsequent appointment and/or the requirements of the appointment.
Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) sending a notification of and its content, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 also includes the additional element of “an electronic device associated with a patient” which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is in sufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(A).
Claim(s) 13 merely describe(s) receiving a request for a time estimation, determining the time estimation, and outputting it, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 14 merely describe(s) determining when a phase is complete and identifying associated techniques, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 15 merely describe(s) determining when a procedure is complete and identifying associated clinicians, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 16 merely describe(s) how the duration or end time is predicted and outputting the scheduling based on this, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) determining a second event, determining prediction based on the determination, and outputting a second scheduling, which further defines the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection(s) to Claim 6, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis/bases of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claim 18 rendering the rejection of that claim moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
However, amended claims 1, 19, and 20 do impose meaningful limits on practicing any alleged abstract idea as the subject matter of amended claims 1, 19, and 20 is admittedly novel and non-obvious due at least in part to the incorporation of the subject matter of previously presented claim 18 into amended claims 1, 19, and 20.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether the claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art has no bearing on whether the claims are subject matter eligible. MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).” The Examiner also notes the claims at issue in the Alice Corp. decision itself were novel and non-obvious over the prior art and yet were ineligible.
First, claim 1 recites a particular solution to the problem of how to improve medical scheduling so as to reschedule medical procedures which are likely to be impacted based on events occurring during current medical procedures.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states:
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’. […]. In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
As such, the portion of the MPEP quoted by the Applicant represents an inquiry as to how the solution is achieved, i.e., how the abstraction is practically applied. Put another way, the inquiry is whether the claimed “solution” merely saying the equivalent of “apply it” or whether the claimed “solution” provides an improvement within the meaning described in MPEP 2106.04(d), etc.
This is further explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), which states:
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. […] In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. […] Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
As indicated, a solution to an identified problem is present when the claimed invention provides an improvement to technology. Improvements to technology are present when the abstraction plus the additional elements of the claim practically apply the abstraction. The abstraction itself cannot provide the improvement. The tests to determine whether a practical application (an improvement) is present are described in MPEP 2106.05(d):
Whether an improvement to the computer is present.
Whether a technological solution to a technological problem, i.e., a problem caused by the technological environment to which the claim is confined, is present.
Whether a particular treatment/prophylaxis is present.
Whether a particular machine is claimed.
Whether a transformation is present.
Whether the claims do more than generally linking the abstraction to a particular technological environment.
Applying the most applicable of these tests to the independent claims, the Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any improvement to the computer. The Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technological problem, i.e., a problem caused by the technological environment to which the claim is confined (a computer), that the claim is solving (see response to argument (c)). Finally, the claims merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (a generic computer). The additional elements present in the dependent claims also do not provide a practical application as described in the basis of rejection. Because none of the tests for a practical application are satisfied, an improvement to technology (and thus a “solution to a problem”) is not present and the claims are ineligible.
By outputting the respective scheduling indication for each of the plurality of subsequent medical procedures of the medical facility, the medical system of claim I reduces patient wait times in waiting rooms, thus decreasing patient exposure to other patients, reduces patient stress, reduces the likelihood a patient will have to return a second day, makes more efficient use of medical resource facilities.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the problems described by the Applicant are technical problems caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer). At best, these are administrative or medical problems that exist whether the computer is involved or not.
Second, amended claim I does not invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The Office Action has admitted that the subject matter of claim 18 (now in amended claim I) is not an existing process.
Regarding (d), the Examiner agrees. The Examiner nor the rejection stated that the claimed invention was an existing process. As argued by the Applicant and indicated in the present Office Action, the claimed invention is not an existing process. This argument is not applicable to the basis of rejection. See response to argument (a). Should the Applicant be arguing that their process was existing prior to filing, a prior art rejection would be in order based on Applicant Admitted Prior Art; however, the Examine does not believe that the Applicant is arguing this and is merely incorrectly applying one of the myriad of tests for eligibility.
Third, amended claim 1 is particular in the application of any alleged judicial exception.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely outputs the result of the abstraction, which represents “apply it.” There is no claimed application of the abstract idea.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Applicant has cancelled Claim 18 rendering the rejection of that claim moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and finds them persuasive. The prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Johnson et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2009/0089092) which discloses a method for scheduling healthcare resources to a series of patients based on a confidence level / probability that the resource will or will not be available for the scheduled block of time.
Luciani (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2022/0170758) which discloses a smart scheduling system that uses user preferences to and new event data to predict a travel time and then uses environmental data to revise the travel time and notify the user.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights