DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claim 15 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 13 states, the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the internal rating allotted to the secondary users is calculated based on one or more of the following factors - response rate of the user, cancellation rate of the user, absence rate of the user, and so on. The use of the terms “and so on” allow any or all potential factors to be considered in the rating calculation and thus render the claim indefinite.
Since claim 13 fails 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, and has been determined to be indefinite, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of scheduling appointments based on user preferences, enabling standby scheduling for desired appointment times, and updating schedules based on cancellations or no shows in accordance with preferences and user engagement history.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method for dynamic appointment scheduling, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a user to book an appointment schedule based on one or more user preferences; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
identifying one or more available appointment schedules corresponding to the one or more user preferences, wherein each appointment schedule includes one or more session slots; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
presenting the identified one or more appointment schedules to the user
allowing the user to select a preferred appointment schedule from the presented one or more appointment schedules; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
presenting a waiting list option along with the identified appointment schedules, wherein the user optionally selects the waiting list option if at least one
preferred session slot is unavailable; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and
submitting user selection to confirm booking of the selected appointment schedule, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method further defining a first and second appointment schedule based on user preference, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion - claim 2), the user receiving notification when a preferred slot is available, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 3), where the user is notified to confirm booking and add the slot to the schedule of the user, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 4), where user preferences include date, time, provider, session type, appointment gap interval, or a combination thereof, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim – 5), generating recommendations of available schedules based on slot availability, user’s appointment history, user’s calendar, user’s medical situation, or a combination thereof, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 6), where the wait list is updated based on cancellations, rescheduling, new slots, no shows, or a combination thereof, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 7), where a secondary user receives notification when a slot is cancelled by the user and the notification enables booking the cancelled slot, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 8), where the method includes booking multiple session slots in parallel for multiple patients, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 9), where secondary users are on a waiting list such that they receive notification if a chosen slot becomes available, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 10), where notification of the slot made available can be shared in batches such that a first group receives priority to book over a second group, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 11), where secondary are allowed to book based on first come first served, urgency to book, an internal rating of the user, or a combination thereof, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 12), where the internal rating is calculated based on response rate, cancellation rate, absence rate and so on, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 13), where the scheduled sessions are added to the user’s calendar, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 14), where booking a session slot for a less preferred time enables going on the waiting list for a preferred session slot and receiving notification if the slot becomes available, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 16), where the waiting list is updated based on cancellations or rescheduling, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 17), where models are used to analyze received user requests and identify available slots based on user preferences, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 18), where a unique user profile is created and includes user preferences, previous appointment data, cancellation data, user schedule, user medical information, and other information that fits user preferences, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 19), and providing multilingual support to users, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 20).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, fundamental economic principles and practices.
Claim 15 recites similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claim 1,
thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer configured to allow access to an appointment scheduling platform, a processing device configured to store instructions, a user interface, natural language processing, machine learning and generative AI models, a mobile device, an access link, and memory, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch
(US20250046438A1) hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking.”
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method for dynamic appointment scheduling, Burch teaches, (a computer-implemented method of AI assisted dynamic medical appointment scheduling, [0020]), the method comprising:
receiving a request from a user to book an appointment schedule based on one or more user preferences; (The medical appointment request may be received via, or from, any number and/or type(s) of user devices, [0026]),
identifying one or more available appointment schedules corresponding to the one or more user preferences, wherein each appointment schedule includes one or more session slots; (to see an appointment schedule of the medical provider, identify available medical appointment slots, [0028]),
presenting the identified one or more appointment schedules to the user via a user interface; (The scheduling module 110 executes, among possibly other modules, a scheduling user interface (UI) module 112 configured to provide, on a display of a user device 20, a scheduling UI 200, [0028]),
allowing the user to select a preferred appointment schedule from the presented one or more appointment schedules; (receiving, at the scheduling module, from the person via the user interface, a selection of a selected appointment slot of the one or more available appointment slots; [Claim 15]),
presenting a waiting list option along with the identified appointment schedules, wherein the user optionally selects the waiting list option if at least one
preferred session slot is unavailable; Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (appointment tracking and dynamic modification system 127 is provided waitlist data 125 representing a waitlist of substitute clients/customers for vacated scheduled appointments, [17:4-7]),
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist convenience of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8]), and
submitting user selection to confirm booking of the selected appointment schedule, Burch teaches, (receiving, at the scheduling module, from the person via the user interface, a selection of a selected appointment slot of the one or more available appointment slots, [Abstract]).
Claim 15 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 1. In this claim, the addition of a computer implemented system and a processing device does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Burch teaches A system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, [Claim 15]).
Regarding claim 3, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user receives a notification on his mobile device when the at least one preferred slot is available, as selected in the waiting list option. Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (In one embodiment, at least part of process for providing dynamic appointment scheduling and tracking 200, shown as process 200 in FIG. 1, is implemented on one or more computing systems, and/or one or more mobile computing systems, such as client/customer computing system 100, and/or appointment tracking and dynamic modification computing system 120, and/or centralized appointment scheduling system 150, (61) and appointment tracking and dynamic modification system 127 is provided waitlist data 125 representing a waitlist of substitute clients/customers for vacated scheduled appointments, (100).
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist convenience and mobile phone connectivity of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8]).
Regarding claim 5, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user preferences based on which the one or more appointment schedules are identified include date range, time window, choice of expert, session type, gap between appointment slots, or a combination thereof. Burch teaches, (the historical data includes, for each past appointment of the plurality of past appointments, at least one of a date, a day of a week, a day of a month, a month of a year, a scheduled start time, an actual start time, a duration, a current procedural terminology (CPT) code, a procedure description, a practitioner identifier, an equipment identifier, a location identifier, a room identifier, [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, The method as claimed in claim 1 further comprises generating one or more recommendations of available one or more appointment schedules automatically based on at least one of the following- availability of slots, user's appointment history, user's calendar, medical situation, or a combination thereof. Burch teaches, (The load-leveling model trained by a training process that trains the load-leveling model by obtaining training data including historical data representing a plurality of past medical appointments, [0003], and the historical data includes, for each past appointment of the plurality of past appointments, at least one of a date, a day of a week, a day of a month, a month of a year, a scheduled start time, an actual start time, a duration, [0005], the historical information datastore 150c stores data that represents, foreach appointment slot and/or medical resource of a medical provider, a no show rate, a cancellation rate, cancellation reason codes, and/or cancellations by day/time, [0031], the load-leveling ML model 122 may be trained using historical information 150c collected for a plurality of treatments, medical providers, medical resources, etc., [0046].
Regarding claim 7, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the waiting list dynamically updates based on cancellation of slots, rescheduling of slots, newly available slots, no show, or a combination thereof. Burch teaches, (The scheduling module executes, among possibly other modules, a scheduling user interface (UI) module configured to provide, on a display of a user device, a scheduling UI that enables a representative of a medical provider to interact with a scheduling information datastore, [ ], schedule appointments, update appointments, change appointments, cancel appointments, etc., [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein one or more secondary users receive notification on their respective mobile device when the at least one session slot is cancelled by the user, wherein the notification includes an access link to book the cancelled session slot. Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (appointment modification rules data includes instructions and or guidelines including, but not limited to: data representing a waitlist of substitute clients/customers for vacated scheduled appointments; [6:13-17], one or more actions are taken to notify the registered attending client/customer, and/or to reschedule, or otherwise modify, the scheduled appointment in accordance with appointment modification rules associated with the operation and/or application of the process for providing dynamic appointment scheduling and tracking, and/or the appointment data from one or more appointment scheduling applications, and/or the registered attending client/customer registration data [3:14-22], the appointment tracking and dynamic modification system includes, and/or is linked to, and/or is associated with, one or more location monitoring systems as discussed herein, and/or as known in the art/available at the time of filing, and/or as developed/made available after the time of filing, through which the appointment tracking and dynamic modification system obtains location tracking data associated with one or more computing systems, and/or mobile computing systems, used by, under the control of, and/or otherwise associated with, one or more clients/customers and/or service providers, [5:25-35].
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist convenience of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8]).
Regarding claim 9, The method as claimed in claim 1 further includes booking of multiple session slots parallelly for multiple patients. Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (the appointment tracking and dynamic modification system is part of a cloud-based architecture, and/or system, whereby the appointment tracking and dynamic modification system can be accessed by, and/or can access, multiple computing systems, and/or mobile computing systems, multiple individual user calendar and/or appointment scheduling applications, and/or multiple centralized appointment scheduling applications (18) p5
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the parallel access features of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8]).
Regarding claim 10, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the secondary users are the users who are in a waiting list to book a session slot of their choice such that the secondary users receive a notification if the chosen session slot is made available due to cancellation or rescheduling by the user who booked the slot in first place. Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (appointment modification rules data includes instructions and or guidelines including, but not limited to: data representing a waitlist of substitute clients/customers for vacated scheduled appointments; [6:13-17], one or more actions are taken to notify the registered attending client/customer, and/or to reschedule, or otherwise modify, the scheduled appointment in accordance with appointment modification rules associated with the operation and/or application of the process for providing dynamic appointment scheduling and tracking, and/or the appointment data from one or more appointment scheduling applications, and/or the registered attending client/customer registration data [3:14-22].
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist convenience of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8]).
Regarding claim 18, The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the system further comprises one or more of natural language processing, machine learning and generative AI models to analyze received user request and identify one or more available appointment schedules based on user preferences. Burch teaches, FIG. 1 is a schematic view of an example artificial intelligence (AI) assisted dynamic medical appointment scheduling, [0016]; the load-leveling model trained by a training process that trains the load-leveling model by obtaining training data including historical data representing a plurality of past medical appointments, [0003], the load-leveling model includes a trained machine learning (ML) model, [0005].
Regarding claim 19, The system as claimed in claim 15 creates a unique user profile in the appointment scheduling platform which gets stored in the memory, wherein the memory
further includes one or more user preferences, previous appointment data, previous
cancellation data, user schedule, user medical data and other relevant user information for
identifying one or more available appointment schedules that fits user preferences. Burch does not teach, Jagannathan teaches, (client/customer registration data includes, but is not limited to, one or more of: contact information for the client/customer such as mobile phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and/or other text-based message contact information, and/or traditional phone numbers, etc.; data indicating various preferences associated with the client/customer such as, occupations and flexibility with regard to scheduling, the need or desire to meet with a specific service provider, etc.; the service to be provided at the appointment; permission to access one or more calendar systems and/or appointment scheduling systems associated with the client/customer; permission to track the location of the client/customer; and/or any other registration data desired, and/or required, by the service/appointment-based business using, and/or implementing, the process for providing dynamic appointment scheduling and tracking, [7:13-28]).
Burch and Jagannathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist convenience of Jagannathan to maximize the number of client appointments scheduled and completed each day, Jagannathan, [1:7-8])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch (US20250046438A1)
hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Chen, (US20090006161A1), hereafter Chen, “Systems and Methods for Managing Events of Event Scheduling Applications.”
Regarding Claim 2, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identified one or more appointment schedules further comprises a first appointment schedule and a second
appointment schedule such that the first appointment schedule is ranked higher to the
second appointment schedule based on the one or more user preferences. Burch does not teach, Chen teaches, (In an enhanced user interface, such as a graphical user interface, prospective attendees may prioritize their preferred time slots, according to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. preference and invoke a command to send selections back to the software algorithm (element 712), [0077], and the algorithm may then make a determination as to whether an optimal or preferred solution may be found based on the input and constraining rules supplied to the constraint solver (element 726). If a solution can be found, the algorithm may automatically reserve the time slots on the calendars of the affected attendees (element 728) based on the solution the constraint solver developed, [0080]).
Burch and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the preferred appointment times of Chen the algorithm may evaluate whether agenda items that were submitted earlier in the queue should be given higher priority in the scheduling determination or whether the scheduling determination should accommodate user preferred selections as much as possible. The algorithm may initially try to accommodate the first choice for each attendee, try to accommodate the second choices, etc. [0079]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch (US20250046438A1)
hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Silver, (US20220122042A1), hereafter Silver, “Systems and Methods for Calculating and Dynamically Reconfiguring Resource-Constraint Scheduling Using Visual Representations on Graphical User Interface.”
Regarding claim 4, The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the notification is shared in the form of an access link which is accessed by the user, via the user device interface, to confirm the booking that automatically adds the confirmed preferred slot to the appointment schedule of the user. Burch does not teach, Silver teaches, (the appointment action received via the user interface is one of at type of appointment action selected from a list of type of appointment actions comprising (a)confirmation of one of the possible compliant appointments, [claim 2], program instructions may be communicated using optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signal (e.g., carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.) conveyed via a communication medium such as a network and/or a wired or wireless link, such as may be implemented via a network interface, [0032], and … mobile telephone, or in general any type of computing node, compute node, compute device, and/or computing device, [0028]).
Burch and Silver are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the mobile connectivity of Silver to provide a user with the ability to make dynamic changes to the schedule with the ease of mind that comes with knowing a new reconfigured schedule will be calculated and displayed in real time without delay, [0003]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch
(US20250046438A1) hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Khoubyari, (US8185426B1), hereafter Khoubyari, “Method and System for Providing Real Time Appointment Rescheduling.”
Regarding claim 11, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a notification related to the session slot dynamically made available can be shared with the secondary users in batches such that a first set of secondary users are given priority to book the session slot over a second set of secondary users. Burch does not teach, Khoubyari teaches, (A system and method for providing real-time appointment rescheduling by providing access to one or more computer-based appointment scheduling systems and a virtual open appointment wait-list associated with one or more appointment slots in the scheduling systems. One or more service consumers request to be placed on the wait-list. When an appointment becomes available, wait-list data is searched to find the first consumer that is next on the wait-list and whose wait-list data is consistent with the newly available appointment. The first consumer is then contacted with a designated period of time to respond and accept the appointment. After the designated period of time has passed with no response from the first consumer, the wait-list data is searched again to find the second service consumer that is next on the wait-list. The process is repeated automatically until the newly available appointment is accepted, [Abstract].
Burch and Khoubyari are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist prioritization of Khoubyari to maximize the number of patient appointments for each business day.
Regarding claim 12, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the secondary users are allowed to book the available session slot based on one of the following - first come first serve basis, urgency to book the session slot, internal rating allotted to the secondary user, or a combination thereof. Burch does not teach, Khoubyari teaches, (receiving a request from one or more service consumers to be placed on the virtual open appointment waitlist for one or more service appointments, [claim1], obtaining virtual open appointment waitlist data, [ ], data including mobile device contact information for each of the one or more service consumers, and a position on the virtual open appointment waitlist for each of the one or more service consumers relative to each of the other one or more service consumers on the virtual open appointment waitlist, [claim 1], with eligibility criteria specific to the given appointment slot. In one embodiment, the eligibility criteria specific to the given appointment slot is based on, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: the length of the appointment slot in terms of time allotted to the appointment slot; the type of services associated with the appointment slot, such full physical or general service; the office location of the appointment slot; the healthcare service provider scheduled for the appointment and/or any specialists or equipment required for the services associated with the appointment slot; or any other eligibility criteria specific to the given appointment slot desired, Khoubyari, [19:42-53]).
Burch and Khoubyari are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist prioritization of Khoubyari to maximize the number of patient appointments for each business day.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch (US20250046438A1)
hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Khoubyari, (US8185426B1), hereafter Khoubyari, “Method and System for Providing Real Time Appointment Rescheduling,” in further view of Sampson, (US20150235183A1), hereafter Sampson, “Computer-Implemented Method and System for Scheduling Appointments with Clients.”
Regarding claim 13, The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the internal rating allotted to the secondary users is calculated based on one or more of the following factors - response rate of the user, cancellation rate of the user, absence rate of the user, and so on. Burch does not teach, Sampson teaches, (In other embodiments, the appointment and availability matching module (111) may assign other priorities or weighting factors to one or more of the client availability parameters and the provider appointment opening parameters, which can be customized by the provider (102) to suit the provider's preferences, [0050]).
Burch and Sampson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist prioritization and weighting of Sampson to suit the provider’s preferences, [0050].
Claims 14, 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch
(US20250046438A1) hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Dewane, (US 20150286992A1), hereafter Dewane, “Appointment Scheduling System and Tool.”
Regarding claim 14, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the scheduled session slots are automatically marked in user's calendar. Burch does not teach, Dewane teaches, (Upon receiving a cancellation indication, the controller is configured to automatically communicate to a first waitlisted customer an offer to fill the first appointment, [0004]).
Burch and Dewane are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist availability automatic notification of Dewane to communicate information through the interface with the healthcare provider scheduling system 612 configured to fill the available appointment in the scheduling system 612, [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the appointment scheduling platform further allows booking of one or more session slots while selecting the waiting list option for another session slot that does not match user preferences, wherein the user receives a notification on his mobile device or via the appointment scheduling platform when a preferred session slot is available to book against the waiting list. Burch does not teach, Dewane teaches, (when the healthcare provider scheduling system receives an indication that a patient has cancelled an appointment or that a new appointment is available, the healthcare provider scheduling system communicates information regarding the available appointment through the interface to the tool, [0034], and in one embodiment, the healthcare provider scheduling system is configured to push notifications of available appointments to the tool, the tool 602 is configured to attempt to contact, such as send a text message, e.g., SMS, call, etc., to the first potential patient on the filtered, sorted list of potential patients, [0037]).
Burch and Dewane are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist availability automatic notification of Dewane to communicate information through the interface with the healthcare provider scheduling system 612 configured to fill the available appointment in the scheduling system 612, [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the appointment scheduling platform is further configured to dynamically update the waiting list based on cancellation or rescheduling done by the user in the booked appointment schedule, Burch does not teach, Dewane teaches, (when the healthcare provider scheduling system receives an indication that a patient has cancelled an appointment or that a new appointment is available, the healthcare provider scheduling system communicates information regarding the available appointment through the interface to the tool, [0034], and in one embodiment, the healthcare provider scheduling system is configured to push notifications of available appointments to the tool, the tool 602 is configured to attempt to contact, such as send a text message, e.g., SMS, call, etc., to the first potential patient on the filtered, sorted list of potential patients, [0037]).
Burch and Dewane are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of appointment scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the waitlist availability automatic notification of Dewane to communicate information through the interface with the healthcare provider scheduling system 612 configured to fill the available appointment in the scheduling system 612, [0037]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Burch
(US20250046438A1) hereafter Burch, “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Dynamic Medical Appointment Scheduling,” in view of Jagannathan, (US 8849689B1), “Method and System for Providing Dynamic Appointment Scheduling and Tracking,” in further view of Dhondse, (US20170200127A1), hereafter Dhondse, “Dynamic Map Based Collaborative Calendar.”
Regarding claim 20, The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the appointment scheduling platform provides multilingual support, allowing the users to make their selections in their preferred language. Burch does not teach, Dhondse teaches, (The data collection program receives additional input from a third-party source 128, reference data 132 and customer relationship management (CRM) 134. The data collection program 130 includes structural data 138 and unstructured data 140 as well as a multilingual converter/natural language support (NLS) 142. A cognitive processor 136 may be used in collected the data 130, [0034]).
Burch and Dhondse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of dynamic scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the dynamic scheduling of Burch with the multilingual features of Dhondse to collects data from various sources, [abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624