DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 04/02/2026 regarding application 18/946,833. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been rejected.
Response to Amendments
2. Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/02/2026 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 filed on 04/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. See Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art Section shown below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
4. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 7-9 dated 04/02/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon under revised step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 7, dated 04/02/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the amendments of Independent Claims 1 and 20 do not recite limitations that set forth an abstract idea and states that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind or do not involve organizing human activities (see Applicant Remarks, Page 7, dated 04/02/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind because they involve communication devices, communication networks, configuration datasets, and rule application. The proper inquiry is not whether a human could literally perform the claimed process at the same speed or scale as a computer, but whether the claim recites an evaluation, judgment, or decision-making process that could practically be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The core limitations for Independent Claims 1 and 20 recite: receiving a timeslot request; applying configuration datasets as inputs to rules; applying rules to the request; resolving conflicts by eliminating unavailable timeslots and generating a response identifying available timeslots. These steps amount to evaluating scheduling criteria against a request and determining which timeslots satisfy the criteria.
A human scheduler could perform the same analysis by: receiving a request for an appointment; consulting scheduling policies and resource constraints; determining which timeslots violate those policies; eliminating unavailable timeslots and informing the requester of the remaining available timeslots. The claim therefore recites a series of observations, evaluations, and judgments that fall squarely within the mental process grouping identified in the 2019 PEG. Merely performing those same decision-making operations on a computer does not remove them from the mental process category. See: CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. where analyzing information and making decisions based on rules was found abstract even when performed by computers.
Applicant argues that because people are not expressly recited, the claims cannot be a method of organizing human activity.
The absence of the word "human" is not dispositive. The claims are directed to scheduling access to resources by determining available appointment or booking timeslots based on rules and constraints. Scheduling, reservation management, appointment allocation, and resource booking are longstanding forms of managing interactions between people and organizations and therefore constitute commercial and administrative practices. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found that claims directed to: reservation systems, resource allocation, scheduling, transaction management, and business rule enforcement are methods of organizing human activity even when implemented on computers. The claimed invention manages the allocation of scarce resources by determining when access to those resources may occur and therefore falls within the "commercial interactions" and "managing relationships or interactions between people" categories identified in the PEG. The fact that the claim is drafted in technical terminology such as "configuration datasets" and "rules" does not alter the underlying focus of the claim, which is scheduling and allocating resource access. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas under “Mental Processes” or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” or “Mathematical Concepts” Groupings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A Prong 1.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 7-9, dated 04/02/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific machine implementation involving processors, communication devices, and communication networks. Merely implementing an abstract scheduling process on generic computing components does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The claims recite only generic computer functions: receiving data, processing data, applying rules, generating results, and transmitting results. No specialized hardware is recited. No specialized network architecture is recited. No technological improvement to processors, databases, communications, or computer functionality is recited. The processor merely serves as a tool to execute the abstract scheduling logic. Under MPEP 2106.05(f), limiting an abstract idea to a generic technological environment does not constitute integration into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims control which timeslots the system exposes to users.
Controlling which timeslots are presented is simply the result of the underlying scheduling determination. The claims merely use the abstract scheduling analysis to produce information reflecting available appointments. The output remains informational in nature. The claims do not improve how the computer stores data, retrieves data, communicates data, or generates user interfaces. Instead, the computer merely displays the outcome of the scheduling decision. Such use of a computer to display the result of an abstract analysis does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See: Electric Power Group & SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC.
Applicant relies heavily on Specification paragraphs discussing: inflexible templates;
inability to adapt dynamically and lack of real-time scheduling.
The inquiry under Step 2A Prong Two focuses on the claim language, not unclaimed advantages described in the specification. Although the specification discusses dynamic adaptability and real-time scheduling, claim 1 does not recite: any particular adaptive algorithm;
any particular machine-learning technique; any specialized scheduling architecture; any specific data structure; any improved database operation and any improvement to networking technology. Instead, the claim broadly recites applying rules to requests and eliminating conflicting timeslots. The alleged improvements are therefore improvements to the abstract scheduling rules themselves rather than improvements to computer technology.
As explained in: Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC and Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. improvements to a business process implemented on a computer are not technological improvements.
The claimed "real-time" operation merely reflects the speed of a generic computer performing the abstract scheduling process. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that performing an abstract idea more quickly or efficiently with a computer does not constitute a technological improvement. See: OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself; it merely uses the computer to perform scheduling decisions faster.
Applicant argues that available timeslots are altered and a response is transmitted.
Generating and transmitting information is itself a conventional post-solution activity. The claimed elimination of unavailable timeslots merely reflects the result of the abstract decision-making process. The claim does not control or modify a physical resource. The claim does not automatically reserve a resource. The claim does not alter the operation of medical equipment, communication equipment, or any other physical device. Instead, it merely produces and communicates information concerning scheduling decisions. Such informational outputs do not constitute a practical application. See: Electric Power Group and In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Argument #3:
(C). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 9, dated 04/02/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The ordered combination merely follows the conventional sequence used in scheduling systems: receive scheduling request; evaluate constraints; identify valid timeslots; and return available options. This is precisely how scheduling systems have traditionally operated.
The claims recite no unconventional mechanism for: evaluating rules; storing configuration data; detecting conflicts and generating responses. The ordered combination therefore merely automates a longstanding scheduling practice using generic computer technology.
Examiner refers Applicant to Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis section (e.g., Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section shown below) shown for step 2B particularly for Independent Claims 1 and 20. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions, because they are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exceptions. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP § 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in these claims with the abstract idea which include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, (2) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and providing the results to the user on a computer, and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Moreover, Examiner refers Applicant to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) court case noting that: “But the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. At Step two, we “search for an ‘inventive concept’… that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). But this simply restates what we have already determined is an abstract idea. At Alice step two, it is irrelevant whether considering historical usage information while inputting data may have been non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter. As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add “significantly more” to it. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC. No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applicant’s suggestion that specific limitations (or the claimed invention as a whole) must be shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional to support the conclusion of subject matter ineligibility is not persuasive.
Even assuming prior systems were less flexible, improvements to business rules do not create an inventive concept. The inventive-concept inquiry asks whether the claims recite technological features beyond the abstract idea itself.
Here, the allegedly inventive features are: the rules; the configuration datasets and the scheduling logic. These constitute the abstract idea itself and therefore cannot supply the inventive concept. See: BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. A claim cannot rely on the abstract idea itself as the inventive concept.
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality: processor; communication device and communication network. The specification provides no indication that these components operate in anything other than their ordinary, conventional capacities. Receiving and transmitting information are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Independent Claims 1 and 20: Here, certain/particular limitations reflect (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “receive a timeslot request for access to a resource from a communication device via communication device”) & (2) mere data transmission (e.g., “transmit the response to the timeslot request to the communication device via the communication network”) wherein each of these claim limitations are reminiscent of insignificant extra-solution activities under (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Independent Claims 1 and 20 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims recite the abstract idea of evaluating scheduling requests against rules and constraints to determine available timeslots and communicate the results, which constitutes both a mental process and a method of organizing human activity. The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea on generic computer components performing routine functions of receiving, processing, generating, and transmitting information. The claims do not improve computer functionality, do not recite a particular technological solution to a technological problem, and do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that recite significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. Therefore, Claims 1-20 remain directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are each focused to a statutory category namely, a “system” or an “apparatus” (Claims 1-19) and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” or an “article of manufacture” (Claim 20).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1 and 20 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 20);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“receive a timeslot request for access to a resource ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“apply a plurality of configuration data sets as inputs to a plurality of rules” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“apply the plurality of rules to the timeslot request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“resolve one or more conflicts by eliminating one or more timeslots which would be available if a booking of such a timeslot would violate one or more rules of the plurality of rules” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“generate a response to the timeslot request in response to resolving the one or more conflicts” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“transmit the response to the timeslot request ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20).
Here, the claim limitations for Independent Claims 1 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of dynamically processing a timeslot request. The directed abstract idea in these limitations falls squarely into the category of rules for managing a commercial transaction and managing personal behavior (specifically, resource scheduling and conflict-resolution rules).
For example; the first claim limitation step of: “Receive a timeslot request for access to a resource from a communication device via a communication network” is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities (receiving and gathering information) Grouping. Abstract Idea Status: This is a routine data-gathering step, constituting an abstract concept of receiving a request for information. The second claim limitation step of: “Apply a plurality of configuration data sets as inputs to a plurality of rules” is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities & Mental Processes Groupings. Abstract Idea Status: Processing conditions or rules against data is an abstract process, akin to mental steps. The third claim limitation step of: "Apply the plurality of rules to the timeslot request" is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities Grouping. Abstract Idea Status: Evaluating conditions based on human-established business rules (determining eligibility or availability). The fourth claim limitation step of: "Resolve one or more conflicts by eliminating one or more timeslots which would be available if a booking of such a timeslot would violate one or more rules..." is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities or Mathematical Concepts Groupings. Abstract Idea Status: This is the core abstract idea: rules for managing a commercial transaction (resource scheduling/booking) and mathematical calculation (eliminating variables that exceed a constraint). The fifth claim limitation step of: "Generate a response to the timeslot request in response to resolving the one or more conflicts" is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities Grouping. Abstract Idea Status: The abstract concept of outputting or transmitting the result of a decision. The last claim limitation step of: "Transmit the response to the timeslot request to the communication device via the communication network" is classified or recited under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities Grouping. Abstract Idea Status: This is a routine data-transmission step, constituting an abstract concept of transmitting the response to the timeslot request.
That is, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “a processor” & “a memory” & “communication network” & “communication device”, etc…), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (2) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (3) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (4) mathematical calculations.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor” & “a memory” & “communication network” & “communication device”). Independent Claim 20 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor” & “communication network” & “communication device”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Independent Claims 1 and 20: Here, certain/particular limitations reflect (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “receive a timeslot request for access to a resource from a communication device via communication device”) & (2) mere data transmission (e.g., “transmit the response to the timeslot request to the communication device via the communication network”) wherein each of these claim limitations are reminiscent of insignificant extra-solution activities under (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor” & “a memory” & “communication network” & “communication device”). Independent Claim 20 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor” & “communication network” & “communication device”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (h) and See MPEP § 2106.05 (f). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (see at least Applicant’s Specification: ¶ [0132]: “The systems and methods of this disclosure can be implemented in conjunction with a special purpose computer, a programmed microprocessor or microcontroller and peripheral integrated circuit element(s), an ASIC or other integrated circuit, a digital signal processor, a hard-wired electronic or logic circuit such as discrete element circuit, a programmable logic device or gate array such as PLD, PLA, FPGA, PAL, special purpose computer, any comparable means, or the like. In general, any device(s) or means capable of implementing the methodology illustrated herein can be used to implement the various aspects of this disclosure. Exemplary hardware that can be used for the present disclosure includes computers, handheld devices, telephones (e.g., cellular, Internet enabled, digital, analog, hybrids and others), and other hardware known in the art.”). See also Applicant’s Specification: ¶ [0134]: “The disclosed methods may be partially implemented in software that can be stored on a storage medium, executed on programmed general-purpose computer with the cooperation of a controller and memory, a special purpose computer, a microprocessor, or the like.”). Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 20 recite additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination in view of the claim limitations which fail to add significantly more to the judicial exception due to: reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions by providing the results to the user on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)) or the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment for dynamically processing a timeslot request using a computer in a business enterprise environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)).
Independent Claims 1 and 20: Here, certain/particular limitations reflect (1) mere data gathering (e.g., “receive a timeslot request for access to a resource from a communication device via communication device”) & (2) mere data transmission (e.g., “transmit the response to the timeslot request to the communication device via the communication network”) wherein each of these claim limitations are reminiscent of insignificant extra-solution activities under (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Independent Claims 1 and 20 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-19 recite the same abstract ideas as Independent Claims 1 and 20 along with further steps/details that could also be concepts performed in the human mind as “Mental Processes” (including observations or evaluations or judgements) or using pen to paper as a “physical aid” and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teachings or following rules or instructions) and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to mathematical calculations.
Furthermore, Dependent Claims 3, 8-9, 11 and 13-19 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B for Independent Claims 1 and 20. Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 10 and 12: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “web browser” (see Dependent Claim 2) & “cache” (see Dependent Claims 6-7) & “cache API” (see Dependent Claim 7) & “a scheduling machine server” (see Dependent Claim 7) & “one or more machine learning models” (see Dependent Claims 4-5 and 10) & “kiosk” (see Dependent Claim 12)) as an additional element shown in Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 10 and 12 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to storing and analyzing information describing at least one of clinic hours, scheduling hours, clinical models and configuration data in a scheduling or appointment field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions by providing the results to the user on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)).
The additional element of “one or more machine learning models” in certain/particular claims does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B due to being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. See at least US PG Pub (US 2020/00411170 A1) hereinafter Brown, et. al. Brown at ¶ [0107] notes that the task assessment machine learning component 318 can employ various types of machine learning techniques for learning explicitly or implicitly how segment care plan information into discrete tasks, how to group tasks, and/or how to order tasks via an automatic classification system and process. Paragraph (0107) further describes any variety of ML models known.
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-20 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
7. Independent Claims 1 and 20 have overcome the prior art rejection (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 10-12 filed on 04/02/2026), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore Claims 1-20 are withdrawn over the 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) prior art rejections. However, Claims 1-20 remain still rejected over 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For Independent Claims 1 and 20, there is no disclosure in the existing prior art or any new art that either teaches and/or discloses the sequence operation of each of these features either individually or in combination relating to:
“apply the plurality of rules to the timeslot request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“resolve one or more conflicts by eliminating one or more timeslots which would be available if a booking of such a timeslot would violate one or more rules of the plurality of rules” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“generate a response to the timeslot request in response to resolving the one or more conflicts” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“transmit the response to the timeslot request ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20).
The closest prior arts are as follows:
US PG Pub (US 2013/0054805 A1) hereinafter Lipari, et. al. and in view of US PG Pub (US 2017/0024704 A1) hereinafter Tompkins, et. al.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Lipari system for smart scheduling machine teaches the following:
- a processor (see at least Lipari: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0021].);
- memory comprising data stored therein (see at least Lipari: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0023]) that is executable by the processor (see at least Lipari: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0021]), wherein the data stored in the memory (see at least Lipari: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0023]) comprises:
- user portal instructions (see at least Lipari: ¶ [0052-0054]) that facilitate communications with one or more communication devices (see at least Lipari: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0017] & ¶ [0019-0022].), wherein the user portal instructions (see at least Lipari: ¶ [0052-0054].) are configured to receive a request for access to a resource in the form of a timeslot request (see at least Lipari: ¶ [0023-0024] & Fig. 5.).
However, Lipari, et. al. specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
“apply the plurality of rules to the timeslot request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“resolve one or more conflicts by eliminating one or more timeslots which would be available if a booking of such a timeslot would violate one or more rules of the plurality of rules” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“generate a response to the timeslot request in response to resolving the one or more conflicts” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“transmit the response to the timeslot request ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Tompkins system for smart scheduling machine teaches the following:
- a scheduling machine (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 1 & Fig. 4 & ¶ [0052].);
- a plurality of configuration data sets (see at least Tompkins: ¶ [0045-0046] & ¶ [0050] & (Dependent Claim 7 of Tompkins). Tompkins teaches that the passive peer-validated data store 10 can also be configured to receive requests for particular sets of data (e.g., business rules or appointment schedules) and provide the requested sets of data to the edge-connected device(s) 14 for processing. The edge-connected device(s) 14 can utilize the provided requested sets of data to provide instructions for modifying the calendar back to the passive peer-validated data store 10. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0050]: The scheduling optimization system 100 enables patients to use their edge-connected device(s) 14 to select optimal available appointment times, in real-time, by virtue of the instantiation of the complete scheduling rules set on their edge-connected device(s). See also (Dependent Claim 7 of Tompkins): Users are enabled by the system to select optimal available appointment times, in real-time, by virtue of an instantiation of complete scheduling rules set.);
- a rules engine (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 1 & Fig. 4) that generates a response to the timeslot request by applying a plurality of rules to the timeslot request (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 4 & ¶ [0034] & ¶ [0060]. Tompkins notes that individual edge-connected devices can query the central passive peer-validated data store in order to determine if any given user should be proactively notified proactively notified, with preferred timeslots that match currently available scheduling gaps or similarly may notify users with adjacent time slots that are similarly available. As each appointment slot is shifted, opened, or reserved by the edge-connected devices, the master schedule/calendar is updated in the passive peer-validated data store by rigorous peer-managed & crowd-sourced distributed computing algorithms that include multiple levels of both edge-connected node authentication and rules validation. In the setting that all qualifying rules conditions are reached, the final contributing edge-connected device then initiates a transaction upon the passive peer-validated data store to log the existence of the new scheduled event, thus filling the open time slot. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0060]: An example of scheduling business rules can include awarding a coupon to a consumer who was subject to a service-provider associated delay and/or rescheduling or providing an incentive coupon for attracting consumers to a particular service-provider and/or appointment time slot. The electronic incentive coupon is provided in response to a service-provider associated delay event. The business rules can be configured based on a service provider's preferences and transmission of incentives can automatically be initiated once a predetermined criterion is satisfied.), wherein the plurality of rules (see at least Tompkins: ¶ [0034] & ¶ [0051] & (Table 1). Tompkins notes that scheduling optimization system 100 effectively enforces a plurality of prioritization rules as directly implemented on the plurality of edge-connected device(s) 14 independently of the need for a central schema orchestration (e.g., having rules co-resident on the passive peer-validated data store 10), facilitating a true distributed computational model in real-time, based on collective knowledge of the edge-connected schema. For example, a user of an edge-connected device 14 can view the latest master schedule on the passive peer-validated data store 10 and directly book any available appointment slot in the schedule, resulting in the master schedule being updated with the new appointment.) utilize the plurality of configuration data sets as inputs thereto (see at least Tompkins: ¶ [0045-0046] & ¶ [0050] & (Dependent Claim 7 of Tompkins). Tompkins teaches that the passive peer-validated data store 10 can also be configured to receive requests for particular sets of data (e.g., business rules or appointment schedules) and provide the requested sets of data to the edge-connected device(s) 14 for processing. The edge-connected device(s) 14 can utilize the provided requested sets of data to provide instructions for modifying the calendar back to the passive peer-validated data store 10. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0050]: The scheduling optimization system 100 enables patients to use their edge-connected device(s) 14 to select optimal available appointment times, in real-time, by virtue of the instantiation of the complete scheduling rules set on their edge-connected device(s). See also (Dependent Claim 7 of Tompkins): Users are enabled by the system to select optimal available appointment times, in real-time, by virtue of an instantiation of complete scheduling rules set.), and wherein the rules engine resolves one or more conflicts (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 1 & Fig. 4 & ¶ [0049]. Tompkins notes that the rules may dictate that a user cannot book at a particular medical practice appointment between 12 and 2 because of meetings, or that the patient cannot book two particular appointments at a particular date because of a medically related conflict or requirement (e.g., cannot schedule a procedure that requires fasting on the same day as a procedure that requires drinking fluids). See also Tompkins at ¶ [0008]: Operational rules are resolved by a majority quorum protocol shared between the plurality of distributed edge-connected devices.) and eliminates timeslots that would otherwise be available if a booking of such a timeslot would results in a violation of a rule in the plurality of rules (see at least Tompkins: ¶ [0016] & ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0047] & (Claim 12 of Tompkins). Tompkins notes that the scheduling tool is configured to schedule an appointment for the at least one user in the selected open appointment slot and remove the selected open appointment slot from the open appointment slots. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0011]: Rejection to book one or more open appointment slots in the centralized appointment schedule. See also Claim 12 of Tompkins): When the comparison does not indicate a match, or the at least one user rejects the notification, adding the previously scheduled appointment slot to the open appointment slots and continue the optimization. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0042]: The master schedule on the passive peer-validated data store 10 is updated accordingly, including removing the selected appointment slot from the list of open appointment slots and inserting the newly created adjusted scheduled appointment slot for the received appointment selection. The optimization further includes determining one or more new open appointment slots based on the adjusted scheduled appointment slot and comparing each of the one or more preferred availability appointment slots, in the passive peer-validated data store 10, to the adjusted scheduled appointment slot. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0047]: Scheduling tool 16 is also configured to schedule an appointment for the at least one user in the selected open appointment slot and remove the selected open appointment slot from the open appointment slots. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0055]: Open appointment slot is available and request confirmation or rejection to book or move their appointment to the open appointment slot.);
- a network interface (see at least Tompkins: Figs. 4-5 & ¶ [0065].) that facilitates communication between the processor (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 5 & ¶ [0067]) and the one or more communication devices via a communication network (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 5 & ¶ [0039] & ¶ [0047] & ¶ [0066]), wherein the network interface (see at least Tompkins: Figs. 4-5 & ¶ [0065].) carries the timeslot request (see at least Tompkins: ¶ [0043-0046] & ¶ [0054]. Tompkins notes that the edge-connected device(s) 14 can carry out queries on the passive peer-validated data store 10 and repeat the above-mentioned steps for each time an appointment is made and/or changed, based on the received selections from the edge-connected devices 14. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0031]: The optimization can include the passive peer-validated data store notifying system users on their edge-connected devices that an appointment slot is available, and subsequently requesting confirmation as to whether the user of the edge-connected devices would like to book one of the available appointment slots, or alternatively to querying users with existing scheduled slots as to their willingness to move their time slightly sooner or later to accommodate the newly sought optimization.) from the one or more communication devices to the processor (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 5 & ¶ [0039] & ¶ [0047]) and wherein the network interface (see at least Tompkins: Figs. 4-5 & ¶ [0065].) provides the response to the timeslot request to the one or more communication devices (see at least Tompkins: Fig. 3C & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0055]. Tompkins notes that a user can insert an appointment in an empty slot and transmit the insertion to the passive peer-validated data store 10 via the patient's edge-connected device 14. In response to receiving the canceled or inserted appointment instruction, the passive peer-validated data store 10 can update the core schema to reflect the request associated with the cancelation or insertion. See also Tompkins at ¶ [0041]: The edge-connected schema also includes an electronic communication tool 18 configured to receive requests for open appointment slots and adjustments to scheduled appointment slots from the plurality of edge-connected devices 14, provide the open appointment slots to the plurality of edge-connected devices 14, of an open appointment slot from the open appointment slots and one or more preferred availability appointment slots, wherein the one or more preferred availability appointment slots is not one of the open appointment slots at a time of selection and receive an adjustment, from at least one of the plurality of edge-connected devices 14, to a scheduled appointment slot relative to slots of the previously scheduled appointments, thereby creating an adjusted scheduled appointment slot.).
However, Thompkins, et. al. specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
“apply the plurality of rules to the timeslot request” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“resolve one or more conflicts by eliminating one or more timeslots which would be available if a booking of such a timeslot would violate one or more rules of the plurality of rules” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“generate a response to the timeslot request in response to resolving the one or more conflicts” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20);
“transmit the response to the timeslot request ” (see Independent Claims 1 and 20).
Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor do the available art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modification would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights