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 amendments filed 26 December 2025:
Claim 18 is cancelled
Claim 21 is new
Claims 1,6, 11, 16, 19 and 20 are amended
Claims 1-17, 19-21 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on 26 December 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers”. It is unclear how the step is performed. The Examiner interprets the claims to be (a) sending at least 2 queries to each service provider, or (b) generating at least 2 queries and sending one to at least 2 providers. Further clarification is needed in the claim to clearly understand what the limitation is performing.
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 1-17, 19-21 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, 6, 11, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a systems, apparatus, computer-implemented method, and non-transitory computer readable medium, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19 (Claim 6 being representative)
The limitations of:
receive first information corresponding to a medical procedure and present second information including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed;
receive the first information and provide the second information;
obtain profile information corresponding to the medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure, the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region;
generate a plurality of queries in parallel, each query formatted according to [ … ] a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region, send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers, receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed;
and aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers and present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
and subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider,
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 schedule medical procedures in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “controlling, generating, sending, receiving, scheduling” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), 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 claim recites the additional elements of a user system, referral system, communication system, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, data communication network and executable programming modules that implements the identified abstract idea. The user system, referral system, communication system, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, data communication network and executable programming modules is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
The claims further recite the additional elements of a user interface and application programming interface. The user interface and application programming interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 elements of using a user system, referral system, communication system, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, data communication network and executable programming modules 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”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user interface and application programming interface were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5,7-10,12-15,17, 20-21 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) 2,7,12 merely describe(s) the medical procedure, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3,8,13 merely describe(s) the queries, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4-5,9-10,14-15 merely describe(s) the report, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s)…, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 20 merely describe(s) the medical procedure and queries, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 21 merely describe(s) the defined API, which further defines the abstract idea.
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, 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 Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1-3,6-8,11-13,16-17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al (US Publication No. 20190304597) in view of UDANI et al (US Publication No. 20150012631) in view of White et al (US Publication No. 20140244282) in view of Shaw et al (US Publication No. 20190318825).
Regarding Claim 1
Grossman teaches a system for scheduling medical procedures, the system comprising:
a user system configured to receive first information corresponding to a medical procedure and obtain profile information corresponding to the medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure [Grossman at Para. 0008 teaches in some embodiments, based at least in part on information received from the user, the processor can be configured to determine a medical procedure, determine a geographic location for the medical procedure, determine a medical facility for the medical procedure at the geographic location, determine a medical practitioner, and determine a price for the medical procedure using the data stored in the memory; Grossman at Para. 0152 teaches a first data structure 1005 includes one or more variables, tags, flags, or elements that help maintain the data stored as part of or associated or linked with the first data structure 1005, for example, to allow or aid in subsequent look-up of the data or subsets of the data stored. The first data structure 1005 may correspond to a type of procedure (e.g., a medical procedure or service, such as a type of surgery or other treatment). Variables associated with the first data structure 1005, as discussed in greater detail below, may include or correspond with values providing additional information associated with that procedure (e.g., doctors who perform the procedure, where the procedures may take place, costs of the procedure, availability for scheduling of the procedure to be performed, other requirements associated with the procedure, such as age, sex, weight, or other requirements to be met before the procedure may be performed on a patient, etc.)],
the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0055 teaches at step 274 a patient can be enabled to enter (e.g., select from a drop-down menu and/or web-enabled map) a desired geographic location for the medical procedure or service (e.g., a geographic location where the patient wishes to receive the medical treatment or service); Grossman at Para. 0057 teaches a step 276 can enable the patient to enter a desired medical procedure or service],
wherein the user system is further configured to,
[ … ] … and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0079 teaches in some embodiments, die display of the results can be a single location and cost for the medical procedure or services desired, selected, or calculated in steps 276, or can be a list of possible locations and corresponding prices that the user can choose amongst.], … [ … ]
[ … ] … each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at Para. 0096 teaches for example, as illustrated, if a user of the system indicated a desired medical procedure (e.g., “Procedure 1” and indicated a desired location (e.g., location encompassing “Hospital 1” and “Hospital 2” within Its borders, with “Doctor 1” and “Doctor 2” in such area and available to perform particular medical procedure), those four search results (420, 425, 430, 435) and their associated costs (e.g., “Price 1,” “Price 2,” “Price 3,” and “Price 4,” respectively) can be shown];
[ … ] … wherein the user system is further configured to, subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider [Grossman at Para. 0097 teaches likewise, if a particular search result is desirable to a user, the user can click to select such search result and then press a button 470 allowing them to hook or schedule an appointment for the medical procedure (interpret to combine with responses of UDANI)].
Grossman does not teach generate a plurality of queries in parallel, each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers,
and receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and a referral system configured to aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers
and generate a report comprising an ordered list one or more of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator,
wherein the report includes at least one of the first data elements and one of the second data elements,
and wherein the referral system is configured to deliver the report via a user interface of the user system, … [ … ]
UDANI teaches generate a plurality of queries in parallel [UDANI at Para. 0026 teaches this may include employing the use of a search algorithm, query procedure or any known or still developing data mining and acquisition techniques. Based on the results, the secure estimation platform 103 then submits a request for estimate information to the provider access systems 102 of the relevant health care providers], … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0053 teaches in another step 309, the platform 103 further transmits the second request to one or more providers of the service. It is noted that the second request may correspond to submission of requests for estimates from one or more service providers. In step 311, the platform 103 selects the one or more providers based on criteria specified in the first request, wherein the estimate is representative of cost information, availability information, type of service information, or a combination thereof],
and receive a response to each of the plurality of queries [UDANI at Para. 0054 teaches in step 313 or process 312 (FIG. 3B), the secure estimation platform 103 receives one or more responses to the second request from the one or more providers, wherein the one or more responses include service cost information, service availability information, type of service information, or a combination thereof], … [ … ]
and a referral system configured to aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0054] … [ … ]
Assuming arguendo that UDANI does not teach in parallel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of sending queries in parallel with teaching of UDANI since it would be obvious to incorporate the given features of sending queries in parallel with the teaching of UDANI given the finite number of possible ways to alert a user (KSR rationale E). It would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, to sending queries in parallel since there are a finite number of methods of generating queries (series or parallel) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the cost and benefits are known).
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data elements of Grossman with the responses of UDANI with the motivation to reduce cost of personalized services.
Grossman/UDANI do not teach [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
and generate a report comprising an ordered list one or more of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator,
wherein the report includes at least one of the first data elements and one of the second data elements,
and wherein the referral system is configured to deliver the report via a user interface of the user system, … [ … ]
White teaches [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers [White at Para. 0089 teaches the system can normalize the collected provider data to produce normalized provider data (410). This can include converting collected data in different formats or from different sources into a normalized format. The normalization can be performed according to defined rules, and can include data exception processes as described herein] … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI with the format of White with the motivation to reduce costs, improve patient safety/compliance and improve operational efficiency.
Grossman/UDANI/White do not teach and generate a report comprising an ordered list one or more of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator,
wherein the report includes at least one of the first data elements and one of the second data elements,
and wherein the referral system is configured to deliver the report via a user interface of the user system, … [ … ]
Shaw teaches and generate a report comprising an ordered list one or more of the responses [Shaw at Para. 0051 teaches at step 412, process 400 may include causing mobile device 102 to display at least a portion of the ranking. The display may be in any manner, including visual or audio. For example, the user may be able to review the list by scrolling. The list may include links to more information regarding a particular medical service provider 108 (interpreted as a report)] sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator [Shaw at Para. 0048 teaches the ranking may also factor in ultimate cost of the medical service. For example, lower priced medical service provider 108 may be ranked higher than an otherwise comparable medical service provider 108 that charges more],
wherein the report includes at least one of the first data elements and one of the second data elements [Shaw at Para. 0051 (interpret to combine with data elements of Grossman)],
and wherein the referral system is configured to deliver the report via a user interface of the user system [Shaw at Para. 0051], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White with the report of Shaw with the motivation to better find the best fit medical service provider.
Regarding Claim 2
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw teach the system of claim 1,
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw further teach wherein the medical procedure is one of a blood test, colonoscopy, broken bone setting, radiological exam, surgical procedures, a CT scan, and an elective medical procedure [Grossman at Para. 0146 teaches these may be users without any medical coverage at all, or users who have medical coverage, but that coverage does not cover the particular procedure or service that is desired (e.g., elective cosmetic surgery)].
Regarding Claim 3
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw teach the system of claim 1,
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw further teach wherein each of the plurality of queries comprises a patient identifier and the detailed information further comprises a medical history corresponding to the identified patient [Shaw at Para. 0061 teaches Patient information may be a patient profile, contact information, description of symptoms, or medical history of user that is collected by network device 104 or entered by the user via mobile device 102].
Regarding Claim 6
Grossman teaches an apparatus for scheduling medical procedures, the apparatus comprising:
a communication system configured for data communication via a data communication network [Grossman at Para. 0099 teaches Moreover, a user determines and/or receiving costs for at least one medical procedure or service can receive the cost information through an internet service and/or internet web portal. In some embodiments, the internet service and/or internet web portal can provide an interface including tools for providing the cost comparison. More specifically, in some embodiments, the cost comparison or cost comparison tool can be accessed through single internet service and/or internet web portal without the need to switch between multiple internet services and/or internet web portals (internet interpreted as communication network)];
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store executable programmed modules [Grossman at Para. 0008 teaches in a further embodiment, a system for determining a medical procedure for a user can include a memory configured to store data and a processor connected with the memory (memory interpreted as non-transitory computer readable medium)];
a user interface configured to receive first information corresponding to a medical procedure and present second information including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at para. 0025 teaches FIG. 3 show's a display to a user for a query, the display a part of a system implementing a price transparency medical procedure search according to one embodiment of the present invention];
and a processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to execute programmed modules stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor further configured to control the communication system to carry out data communication over the data communication network and to control the user interface to receive the first information and provide the second information Grossman at Para. 0045 teaches at step 230, the results of the determinations made by the processor in steps 210, 215, 220, and/or 225 for the medical procedure can be displayed to the user];
wherein the processor is further configured to,
control the user interface to obtain profile information corresponding to the medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure, the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0055, 0057 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
[ … ] … and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0079 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider [Grossman at Para. 0097 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Grossman do not teach generate a plurality of queries in parallel, … [ … ]
[ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers, … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
UDANI teaches generate a plurality of queries in parallel [UDANI at Para. 0026 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0053 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data elements of Grossman with the responses of UDANI with the motivation to reduce cost of personalized services.
Grossman/UDANI do not teach [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
White teaches [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers [White at Para. 0089 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI with the format of White with the motivation to reduce costs, improve patient safety/compliance and improve operational efficiency.
Grossman/UDANI/White do not teach [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
Shaw teaches [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator [Shaw at Para. 0048 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White with the report of Shaw with the motivation to better find the best fit medical service provider.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim(s) 7 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, thus Claim(s) 7 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim(s) 8 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 8 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3.
Regarding Claim 11
Grossman teaches a computer implemented method for scheduling medical procedures, where one or more processors are programmed to perform steps comprising:
control a user interface to obtain profile information corresponding to a medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure [Grossman at Para. 0008, 0152 (see Claim 1 for explanation)],
the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0055, 0057 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
[ … ] … and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0079 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Grossman does not teach generate a plurality of queries in parallel, each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers, … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
UDANI teaches generate a plurality of queries in parallel [UDANI at Para. 0026 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0053 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data elements of Grossman with the responses of UDANI with the motivation to reduce cost of personalized services.
Grossman/UDANI do not teach [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
White teaches [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers [White at Para. 0089 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI with the format of White with the motivation to reduce costs, improve patient safety/compliance and improve operational efficiency.
Grossman/UDANI/White do not teach [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
Shaw teaches [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator [Shaw at Para. 0048 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White with the report of Shaw with the motivation to better find the best fit medical service provider.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim(s) 12 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, thus Claim(s) 12 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim(s) 13 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 13 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3
Regarding Claim 16
Grossman teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon one or more sequences of instructions for causing one or more processors to perform steps for scheduling medical procedures, the steps comprising:
control a user interface to obtain profile information corresponding to a medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure [Grossman at Para. 0008, 0152 (see Claim 1 for explanation)],
the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0055, 0057 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
[ … ] … and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0079 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Grossman does not teach generate a plurality of queries in parallel, each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers, … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
UDANI teaches generate a plurality of queries in parallel [UDANI at Para. 0026 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0053 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data elements of Grossman with the responses of UDANI with the motivation to reduce cost of personalized services.
Grossman/UDANI do not teach [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
White teaches [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers [White at Para. 0089 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI with the format of White with the motivation to reduce costs, improve patient safety/compliance and improve operational efficiency.
Grossman/UDANI/White do not teach [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
Shaw teaches [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator [Shaw at Para. 0048 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White with the report of Shaw with the motivation to better find the best fit medical service provider.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim(s) 17 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2-3, thus Claim(s) 17 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2-3.
Regarding Claim 19
Grossman teaches a system comprising at least one processor communicatively coupled with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:
control a user interface to obtain profile information corresponding to a medical procedure and detailed information corresponding to the medical procedure [Grossman at Para. 0008, 0152 (see Claim 1 for explanation)],
the profile information comprising a plurality of first data elements including at least one of a medical procedure name and a medical procedure code, the detailed information comprising at least a geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0055, 0057 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
[ … ] … and comprising at least a portion of the profile information and at least the geographic region [Grossman at Para. 0079 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … each response including second information comprising a plurality of second data elements including at least a cash price indicator for the medical procedure and a location where the medical procedure is performed [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and subsequent to a selection of a response from one of the medical procedure providers in the ordered list, schedule the medical procedure with the selected medical procedure provider [Grossman at Para. 0096 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Grossman does not teach generate a plurality of queries in parallel, each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers, … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and aggregate the responses received from the plurality of medical procedure providers
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
UDANI teaches generate a plurality of queries in parallel [UDANI at Para. 0026 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
[ … ] … send each of the plurality of queries in parallel over a data communication network to the plurality of medical procedure providers [UDANI at Para. 0053 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data elements of Grossman with the responses of UDANI with the motivation to reduce cost of personalized services.
Grossman/UDANI do not teach [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers … [ … ]
[ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
White teaches [ … ] … each query formatted according to a defined application programming interface of a respective one of a plurality of medical procedure providers [White at Para. 0089 (see Claim 1 for explanation)]… [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI with the format of White with the motivation to reduce costs, improve patient safety/compliance and improve operational efficiency.
Grossman/UDANI/White do not teach [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries, … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator;
Shaw teaches [ … ] … receive a response to each of the plurality of queries [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
and control the user interface to present an ordered list of the responses [Shaw at Para. 0051 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] sorted according to at least one of a proximity to the geographic region or the cash price indicator [Shaw at Para. 0048 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White with the report of Shaw with the motivation to better find the best fit medical service provider.
Regarding Claim 20
Claim(s) 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2-3, thus Claim(s) 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2-3.
Claims 4-5, 9-10, 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman, UDANI, White, Shaw as applied to claim 1, 6, 11, 16, 19 above, and further in view of Lau et al (US Publication No. 20230162844).
Regarding Claim 4
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw teach the system of claim 1,
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw do not teach wherein the report comprises an ordered list sorted according to a proximity to the geographic region of the location where the medical procedure is performed.
Lau teaches wherein the report comprises an ordered list sorted according to a proximity to the geographic region of the location where the medical procedure is performed [Lau at Para. 0039 teaches in some examples, the ranking subsystem 304 may identify multiple locations for a single provider. In that instance, the ranking subsystem 304 only retains the location closest to the patient and does not include other locations of the provider in the final ranked list (rank interpreted as ordered list)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White, Shaw with the list of Lau with the motivation to better match patients to providers.
Regarding Claim 5
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw teach the system of claim 1,
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw do not teach wherein the report comprises an ordered list sorted according to the cash price indicator.
Lau teaches wherein the report comprises an ordered list sorted according to the cash price indicator [Lau at Para. 0047 teaches the predictive model 406 generates a probability 408 for each provider that the patient user will select the given provider. The patient provider matching system 130 performs post processing logic 410 before providing the final ranked list of search results 412 by analyzing the probability 408 and a set system preference criteria 414. The system preference criteria 414 may include the number of patient reviews for the provider, the overall rating of the provider, cost efficiency of the provider's practice, whether the provider is accepting new patients, and the like (cost efficiency interpreted as cash price indicator)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White, Shaw with the list of Lau with the motivation to better match patients to providers.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim(s) 9 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 4, thus Claim(s) 9 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 4.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim(s) 10 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5, thus Claim(s) 10 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim(s) 14 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 4, thus Claim(s) 14 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 4.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim(s) 15 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5, thus Claim(s) 15 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman, UDANI, White, Shaw as applied to claim 1, 6, 11, 16, 19 above, and further in view of DORN et al (US Publication No. 20200371852).
Regarding Claim 21
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw teach the system of claim 1,
Grossman/UDANI/White/Shaw do not teach wherein the defined API comprises a defined uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to the respective medical procedure provider.
DORN teaches wherein the defined API comprises a defined uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to the respective medical procedure provider [DORN at Para. 0058 teaches in the computer-implemented method of at least one embodiment of the present invention, for providing cross-linking between cloud-based (in particular HTML5) web-applications, a consumer web-application calls a Uniform Resource Locator, URL, implemented in a customized so called provider webpage of a so called provider web-application to activate the customized provider webpage of the provider web-application via a so called cross-link (or: cross-linking principle mechanism].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Grossman, UDANI, White, Shaw with the url of DORN with the motivation to increase the operation efficiency of the respective web service.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-17, 19-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The amended independent claims do not merely recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Rather, amended claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 19 are directed to a specific technical implementation involving parallel query generation formatted according to defined application programming interfaces (APIs) of respective medical procedure providers, parallel transmission over a data communication network to multiple disparate provider systems, aggregation of responses, algorithmic sorting, and actual scheduling of the medical procedure.
Improvements to the underlying technology: The claimed invention provides a technological improvement to existing medical procedure scheduling systems by enabling parallel query generation and transmission to multiple provider systems, which significantly reduces overall transaction time.
Transformation of data or physical items: The system transforms raw medical procedure profile information and geographic region data into formatted API queries that are transmitted to external provider systems, and then transforms the received responses into an aggregated ordered list presentation. Paragraph [0078] of the specification describes the transformation of profile information into queries formatted according to a defined application programming interface (API) or a defined uniform resource locator (URL).
Integration with a specific machine: The claims require integration with specific computing infrastructure including a user system communicatively coupled to multiple external medical procedure provider systems via a data communication network. Paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of the specification describe the platform 110, user systems 130, and external systems 140 and 150 that are communicatively connected via networks 120, where external systems may be affiliated with one or more medical procedure service providers and may be configured to receive requests from one or more user systems 130 to schedule medical procedures.
Meaningful limitations tied to real-world applications: The claims are tied to the real-world application of scheduling medical procedures by aggregating pricing and availability information from actual medical service providers. Paragraph [0042] of the specification describes that external systems are configured to respond to those requests with proposed dates, times, and locations for performing the requested medical procedure.
The additional elements include a user system, referral system, communication system, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and user interface that work together to implement parallel query generation, network transmission to multiple provider systems, and aggregated response presentation. These elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional when combined in the specific manner claimed. In particular, the parallel construction and transmission of API-formatted queries to multiple disparate medical procedure provider systems with subsequent aggregation into a sorted ordered list and actual scheduling of the medical procedure is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The office action did not provide any evidence, such as citations to publications or court decisions, to support any assertion that this specific combination of elements performing these specific functions is well-understood, routine, or conventional. The combination of these elements yields a specific, inventive technical solution that addresses the problem identified in paragraph [0005] of the specification where medical service providers in locations near to where a patient works are unable to offer their services to patients in need and patients in need are not aware of the medical service providers.
Together, these elements transform the concept of comparing medical procedure options into a concrete technological application that, as described in paragraph [0082] of the specification, improves the operation of the many medical procedure service providers disparate scheduling systems and significantly improves overall throughput of medical procedures.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the rejection, the steps of receiving, controlling, generating, etc., are all rules or instructions for a human to perform.
Regarding (b, g), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sending the queries in parallel would be an improvement to the abstract idea. It doesn’t improve the computer or the provider systems. Performing tasks in parallel is a function that computers normally perform. Furthermore, there are at least 2 queries sent, the query having merely 2 bits of data. The profile could contain a letter representing the patient’s gender (M or F) and an abbreviation for the geographic region (NY, MN, FL, etc.). It is unclear how sending this data in parallel reduces the transaction time. Furthermore, there is no technical problem recited in the Specification related to the transaction time. If no improvement is found, then no practical application is found.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Formatting data is a function computers normally perform. The computer is performing actions outside of its normal function. Therefore, no improvement is found.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no specific machine recited in the claims or Specification. All of the steps are performed on generic computer processors, as recited in the Claims, which are functions computers normally perform.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem of scheduling medical procedures is not a technical problem caused by the computer or technological environment. If no technical problem can be found, then no technical improvement can be found. Furthermore, “real-world” application is not a test for practical application.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, 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).” As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention.
In that regard, MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) indicates that in determining whether the additional elements represent are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, the Examiner should consider whether the additional elements (1) provide an improvement to the technological environment to which the claim is confined, (2) whether the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, or (3) whether the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the claims do not provide significantly more based on this inquiry.
Taking these in turn, whether the additional elements of the claim provide an improvement was analyzed/addressed in the 2A2 analysis no improvement was present because the computer is not being improved. The technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer performing generic computer functions [see Spec. Para. 11]) is recited at a high level of generality and has been found by the courts to be insufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Alice Corp.).
Finally, none of the additional elements of the claim were found to represent extra-solution activity and thus no well-understood, routine, conventional analysis is required. MPEP 2106.07(a) states “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” This was not asserted. As such, when viewed either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-17, 19-21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Schwabl et al (US Publication No. 20190237203) discloses Systems, methods and computer readable media that facilitate self-scheduling of medical appointments, particularly specialty referral appointments.
Pennell et al (US Publication No. 20190102461) discloses a system and device for anonymized searching of medical providers
Malkenson et al (US Publication No. 20210043320) discloses a method for filtered, real-time referral searches.
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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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 on (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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights