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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 are pending.
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 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-3 and 6-7), machine (claims 8-10 and 13-14), and article of manufacture (claim 15). Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites:
A reservation capacity adjustment apparatus comprising:
-a memory including an instruction;
-a processor for performing a predetermined operation based on the instruction,
-a communication interface
wherein the operation of the processor includes:
-acquiring, via a communication interface, prescription information and reservation information of a patient stored in a hospital database;
-filtering reservation information based on at least one piece of first information among the prescription information, and calculating a no-show rate of the reservation information; and
-automatically adjusting, by updating reservation capacity data stored in the database, the reservation capacity for the first information based on the calculated no-show rate,
-wherein the first information includes information on whether a doctor in charge of the prescription is an assigned doctor or an unassigned doctor, and
-wherein the adjusting of the reservation capacity includes setting an updated first reservation capacity by adding, to an existing first reservation capacity, a ratio of the no-show rate for a first reservation capacity that is preset based on the first information, the ratio being weighted by applying different weights according to whether the doctor in charge of the prescription is the assigned doctor or the unassigned doctor.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because analyzing information to calculate and adjust reservation capacity can all be done in the human mind.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mathematical concept” because analyzing data to determine no-show rate is a mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A reservation capacity adjustment apparatus comprising:
-a memory including an instruction (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 8-9);
-a processor for performing a predetermined operation based on the instruction (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 9),
-a communication interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 9);
-wherein the operation of the processor includes:
-acquiring, via a communication interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 9), prescription information and reservation information of a patient stored in a hospital database;
-filtering reservation information based on at least one piece of first information among the prescription information, and calculating a no-show rate of the reservation information; and
-automatically adjusting, by updating reservation capacity data stored in the database (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 9-10), the reservation capacity for the first information based on the calculated no-show rate,
-wherein the first information includes information on whether a doctor in charge of the prescription is an assigned doctor or an unassigned doctor, and
-wherein the adjusting of the reservation capacity includes setting an updated first reservation capacity by adding, to an existing first reservation capacity, a ratio of the no-show rate for a first reservation capacity that is preset based on the first information, the ratio being weighted by applying different weights according to whether the doctor in charge of the prescription is the assigned doctor or the unassigned doctor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1 and 15 and analogous independent claim 8 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 1 and 15 and analogous independent claim 8 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2, 9: The claims specify prescription information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 3, 10: The claims specify calculating the no-show rate, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6, 13: The claims specify calculating no-show rate and adjusting of the reservation capacity, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 7, 14: The claims specify reservation information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as acquiring prescription and reservation information, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); filtering reservation information, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); calculating a no-show rate, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); adjusting reservation capacity in database, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-14, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 3, 6, 10, 13 (calculating no-show rate), e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2, 9 (prescription information), 7, 14 (reservation information), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not a mental process because they require i) network-based acquisition of data from a hospital database via a communication interface and ii) automatic adjustment by updating reservation capacity stored in the database. While the claims require various database and communication interface, which are in the physical realm of things. it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. Using a computer to update and communicate data embodies the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform conventional computer functions. The above-mentioned elements employ generic components that perform generic functions of communicating and saving data, which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See id. at 55 n.31. It is well-settled that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’ simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82 (2012)); see Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.30. The lack of details about these elements also indicates that the above-mentioned elements are generic computer components. See Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is a technical improvement to the operation of a computerized hospital reservation system (improving capacity utilization and reducing scheduling inefficiencies caused by no-shows). The present invention solves the problem associated with scheduling capacity, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. Furthermore, Examiner states that the improvement touted by the Applicant is not supported by objective evidence but seems to be a subjective opinion.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velusamy – U.S. Publication No. 2011/0153380 – Teaches a system for managing appointments.
Saha et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2023/0401538 – Teaches a system for predicting missed appointments and overbooking an appointment.
Z. Fan, X. Xie, R. A. Sanchez and X. Zhong, "Overbooking for Specialty Clinics with Patient No-Shows: A Queueing Approach," 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Munich, Germany, 2018, pp. 396-401, doi: 10.1109/COASE.2018.8560573 -- Teaches a system for effective clinic appointment scheduling to reduce backlog.
JP 6853526 B2 – Teaches a system for predicting reservable time for services.
CN 111126641 A – Teaches a system for resource allocation and updating reservations based on neural network model.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681