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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a scheduling module” in claims 10 and 14-22.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraphs [0056] and [0062] of the specification outline that the modules are software.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 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 22 recites the limitation “the method of claim 10” in line 1 of the claim. The statutory class of claim 22 is changing from the statutory class of a system in claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear and the claim has been deemed indefinite. Examiner is interpreting the claim to read as a system.
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 10-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 10-11 and 14-22 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 10-11 and 14-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 10 recites a system for scheduling a patient-specific immunotherapy procedure, the system comprising:
a) a scheduling module that 1) provides a calendar with available dates and times for scheduling a leukapheresis appointment;
b) a server computing device in communication with the scheduling module;
c) a database in communication with the server computing device;
d) a network in communication with the scheduling module; and
e) a plurality of client computing devices in communication with the scheduling module via the network,
wherein the calendar is stored in the database,
wherein one of the client computing devices 2) sends a request to the scheduling module to schedule an available leukapheresis appointment date and time for the patient,
wherein the scheduling module 3) receives the request to schedule the leukapheresis appointment for the patient and updates the calendar in real time that can be accessed by each of the plurality of client computing devices,
4) wherein upon receiving the request on the scheduling module to schedule the leukapheresis appointment, 4a) the scheduling module communicates the request to the server computing device, the server computing device 4b) accesses the calendar stored in the database, and the server computing device 4c) generates a list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment, and
5) wherein the list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment is communicated to the scheduling module for display on a client computing device,
6) wherein the scheduling module automatically generates an apheresis kit drop-off time before the scheduled leukapheresis appointment, and updates the calendar in real time to include the drop off time for the apheresis kit, and
7) wherein the server computing device automatically generates a final product date based on the scheduled leukapheresis appointment date and time, the final product date estimates when a final product of engineered cells from the patient will be available for infusion into the patient, and the scheduling module updates the calendar with the final product date.
Claim 10 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) provides a calendar with available dates and times for scheduling a leukapheresis appointment, 2) sends a request to schedule an available leukapheresis appointment date and time for the patient, 3) receives the request to schedule the leukapheresis appointment for the patient and updates the calendar in real time that can be accessed by each of the plurality of clients, 4) wherein upon receiving the request to schedule the leukapheresis appointment, 4a) communicates the request, 4b) accesses the calendar stored in the database (if pen and paper or human memory), 4c) generates a list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment, and 5) wherein the list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment is communicated for display, 6) wherein something automatically generates an apheresis kit drop-off time before the scheduled leukapheresis appointment, and updates the calendar in real time to include the drop off time for the apheresis kit, and 7) wherein something automatically generates a final product date based on the scheduled leukapheresis appointment date and time, the final product date estimates when a final product of engineered cells from the patient will be available for infusion into the patient, and something updates the calendar with the final product date. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one can organize and schedule a procedure for a patient.
Depending claims 11 and 14-22 include all of the limitations of claim 10, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 11 recites the additional step of “sends manufacturing process updates for the final product of engineered cells from the patient to the server computing device via the network”; claim 14 adds the additional step of “automatically sends an alert to a remote facility with the scheduled drop-off time and a desired location for the apheresis kit, wherein the remote facility will deliver the apheresis kit at the scheduled drop-off time to the desired location”; claim 15 adds the additional step of “sends a request to the scheduling module via the network to schedule a courier pick-up time for cells collected from the patient during the scheduled leukapheresis appointment”; claim 16 adds the additional step of “updates the calendar in real time to display available date and time slots for leukapheresis appointments and booked date and time slots for leukapheresis appointments”; claim 17 adds the additional step of “requests the scheduling module to reschedule the leukapheresis appointment for another available date and time displayed on the calendar”; claim 18 adds the additional step of “updates the calendar with the rescheduled leukapheresis appointment in real time”; claim 19 adds the additional step of “requests the scheduling module to cancel the scheduled leukapheresis appointment”; claim 20 adds the additional step of “updates the calendar with the canceled leukapheresis appointment in real time”; claim 21 adds the additional step of “sends to the scheduling module via the network a number of available leukapheresis appointments for each day on the calendar”; and claim 22 adds the additional steps of “estimates the final product date by considering when the apheresis kit drop-off time is scheduled for, when the leukapheresis appointment is scheduled for, and whether a manufacturing facility has availability to process a sample comprising white blood cells collected from leukapheresis appointment” and “wherein the final product date is communicated to the scheduling module for display on at least one of the plurality of client computing devices”. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 11 and 14-22 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 10 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a scheduling module, b) a server computing device in communication with the scheduling module, c) a database in communication with the server computing device, d) a network in communication with the scheduling module, and e) a plurality of client computing devices in communication with the scheduling module via the network to perform the claimed steps.
The a) scheduling module, b) server computing device, c) database, d) network, and e) plurality of client computing devices in communication with the scheduling module via the network in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0093] where the computing components are not limited to special purpose components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a scheduling module, b) a server computing device, c) a database, d) a network, and e) a plurality of client computing devices to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain mental steps, certain method steps of organizing human activity, or certain mathematical steps. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates an appointment date utilizing a) a scheduling module, b) a server computing device, c) a database, d) a network, and e) a plurality of client computing devices, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 10-11 and 14-22 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 10-11, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/026880 to Susarchick et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,425 to Wason.
As per claim 10, Susarchick et al. teaches a system for scheduling a patient-specific immunotherapy procedure, (see: paragraph [0006] where there is a system of scheduling immunotherapy) the system comprising:
--a scheduling module that provides a calendar with available dates and times for scheduling a leukapheresis appointment; (see: 114 of FIG. 1B and paragraph [0065] where there is a scheduling module which provides a calendar and times for scheduling appointments as displayed in FIG. 4D)
--a server computing device in communication with the scheduling module; (see: paragraphs [0055] and [0062] where there is a server in communication with scheduling module)
--a database in communication with the server computing device; (see: paragraph [0055] where there is a database in communication with the server)
--a network in communication with the scheduling module; (see: FIG. 1B where there is a network connected to the scheduling module) and
--a plurality of client computing devices in communication with the scheduling module via the network, (see: 102 of FIG. 1B where there are a plurality of client computing devices in communication with 114)
--wherein the calendar is stored in the database, (see: paragraph [0065] where calendaring information is being provided and stored in the server database)
--wherein one of the client computing devices sends a request to the scheduling module to schedule an available leukapheresis appointment date and time for the patient, (see: paragraph [0062] where the client devices 102 are communicating with the server 106. Also see: FIGS. 4C and 4D and paragraph [0065] where 114 may be part of 106 and there is a schedule helper which is used to schedule an apheresis appointment. The date and time are being selected here from available days and times using a portal from a client device as described in paragraph [0056]. The client computing devices here are sending a request via portal to the server with the scheduling module 114 to schedule an appointment)
--wherein the scheduling module receives the request to schedule the leukapheresis appointment for the patient, (see: FIGS. 4C and 4D and paragraph [0065] where there is a schedule helper which is used to schedule an apheresis appointment. The date and time are being selected here from available days and times. The scheduling module here is in contact with a server database. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is acceptance of an available timeslot. There is reception here of a request for an appointment timeslot) and
--wherein the scheduling module automatically generates an apheresis kit drop-off time before the scheduled leukapheresis appointment, (see: paragraph [0145] and FIG. 4D where there is an automatically scheduled drop-off time for a kit) and updates the calendar in real time to include the drop off time for the apheresis kit, (see: FIG. 4D where there is a displaying of the updated kit delivery time) and
--wherein the server computing device automatically generates a final product date based on the scheduled leukapheresis appointment date and time, the final product date estimates when a final product of engineered cells from the patient will be available for infusion into the patient, (see: FIG. 1B and paragraph [0065] where there is an estimation of the delivery date for the biological sample. The date here is being generated automatically based on the appointment date and time) and the scheduling module updates the calendar with the final product date (see: FIG. 5B and paragraph [0153] where there is display of the final delivery date/time where the tracking module is updating statuses. Thus, the calendar here is being updated with the final product data and time).
Susarchick et al. further states that only available dates/times are being displayed in FIG. 4D, thus the calendar would be updated for any further patient who would like to schedule an appointment as they would only be able to view available times. Susarchick et al. may also teach the limitation:
1) --wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar in real time that can be accessed by each of the plurality of client computing devices.
However, Examiner has provided an additional reference with an explicit recitation below if Susarchick et al. is determined to not teach the above-recited “updating” limitation.
Susarchick et al. may also not further, specifically teach:
2) --wherein upon receiving the request on the scheduling module to schedule the leukapheresis appointment, the scheduling module communicates the request to the server computing device, the server computing device accesses the calendar stored in the database, and the server computing device generates a list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment, and
3) --wherein the list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment is communicated to the scheduling module for display on a client computing device.
Wason teaches:
1) --wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar in real time that can be accessed by each of the plurality of client computing devices, (see: FIG. 19 and column 7, lines 40-44 where there is an updating of the calendar in real time, so when a patient is trying to request a time slot that is now no longer available the user is informed of this change. Another device, which may be the one being displayed in FIG. 19 is able to see the calendar information that the device of FIG. 18 sees)
2) --wherein upon receiving the request on the scheduling module to schedule the leukapheresis appointment, the scheduling module communicates the request to the server computing device, the server computing device accesses the calendar stored in the database, and the server computing device generates a list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment, (see: column 7, lines 30-44 where upon receiving a request to schedule an appointment, there is accessing of a calendar with available appointment data. The appointments being for leukapheresis was taught in the Susarchick et al. reference) and
3) --wherein the list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment is communicated to the scheduling module for display on a client computing device (see: column 7, lines 30-44 where there is a real time display of the available calendar dates and times where there are booked dates and available dates. The appointments being for leukapheresis was taught in the Susarchick et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar in real time that can be accessed by each of the plurality of client computing devices, have 2) wherein upon receiving the request on the scheduling module to schedule the leukapheresis appointment, the scheduling module communicates the request to the server computing device, the server computing device accesses the calendar stored in the database, and the server computing device generates a list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment and have 3) wherein the list of available dates and times available for the leukapheresis appointment is communicated to the scheduling module for display on a client computing device as taught by Wason in the system as taught by Susarchick et al. with the motivation(s) of improving patient appointment scheduling (see: column 1, lines 21-24 of Wason).
As per claim 11, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches wherein one of the client computing devices sends manufacturing process updates for the final product of engineered cells from the patient to the server computing device via the network (see: FIG. 5B and paragraph [0153] where there is display of the final delivery date/time where the tracking module is updating statuses. Thus, the calendar here is being updated with the final product date and time. Also see: paragraph [0055] where the 102 devices are used for chain of custody tracking, and paragraph [0146] where these 102 devices are being used to input updates about the manufacturing process via events).
As per claim 16, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches leukapheresis appointments (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure, also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Wason further teaches wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar in real time to display available date and time slots for leukapheresis appointments and booked date and time slots for leukapheresis appointments (see: column 7, lines 30-44 where there is a real time display of the available calendar dates and times where there are booked dates and available dates).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 21, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Susarchick et al. may further teach of the availability of appointments for each day, however it does not specifically teach wherein one of the client computing devices sends to the scheduling module via the network a number of available appointments for each day on the calendar.
Wason teaches wherein one of the client computing devices sends to the scheduling module via the network a number of available appointments for each day on the calendar (see: FIG. 11 where there are a number of available appointments being displayed. Also see: FIG. 14 where there are appointments for each day. Depending on which day is selected, multiple appointments are being displayed for each day).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches wherein the server computing device estimates the final product date by considering when the apheresis kit drop-off time is scheduled for, when the leukapheresis appointment is scheduled for, and whether a manufacturing facility has availability to process a sample comprising white blood cells collected from leukapheresis appointment, (see: FIG. 1B and paragraph [0065] where there is an estimation of the delivery date for the biological sample. The date here is being generated automatically and considers the drop-off time and appointment time as it factors in the schedule. Also see: paragraph [0145] where the facility is being determined to have the availability to process the sample) and
--wherein the final product date is communicated to the scheduling module for display on at least one of the plurality of client computing devices (see: paragraph [0154] where there is communication of the final product delivery process. This includes the date).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/026880 to Susarchick et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,425 to Wason as applied to claim 10, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0390502 to Phillips et al.
As per claim 14, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches an item as an apheresis kit (see: paragraph [0145] where there is a kit).
The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein scheduling module automatically sends an alert to a remote facility with the scheduled drop-off time and a desired location for the item, wherein the remote facility will deliver the item at the scheduled drop-off time to the desired location.
Phillips et al. teaches:
--wherein scheduling module automatically sends an alert to a remote facility with the scheduled drop-off time and a desired location for the item, wherein the remote facility will deliver the item at the scheduled drop-off time to the desired location (see: paragraph [0028] where there is an alert to a remote facility (courier) with the desired drop-off time and location (one or more rules). The courier here will deliver the item at the desired location and time).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein scheduling module automatically sends an alert to a remote facility with the scheduled drop-off time and a desired location for the item, wherein the remote facility will deliver the item at the scheduled drop-off time to the desired location as taught by Phillips et al. in the system as taught by Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination with the motivation(s) of improving delivery of sensitive items (see: paragraph [0002] of Phillips et al.).
As per claim 15, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a package in the form of cells collected from the patient during the scheduled leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0007] where there are collected T cells during an appointment).
Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination may not further, specifically teach wherein one of the client computing devices sends a request to the scheduling module via the network to schedule a courier pick-up time for a package.
Phillips et al. teaches:
--wherein one of the client computing devices sends a request to the scheduling module via the network to schedule a courier pick-up time for a package (see: paragraph [0028] where there is an alert to a remote facility (courier) with the desired drop-off time and location (one or more rules). The courier here will deliver the item at the desired location and time).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein one of the client computing devices sends a request to the scheduling module via the network to schedule a courier pick-up time for a package as taught by Phillips et al. in the system as taught by Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination with the motivation(s) of being a sensitive item which needs to be delivered (see: paragraph [0002] of Phillips et al.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/026880 to Susarchick et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,425 to Wason as applied to claim 10, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0024704 to Tompkins et al.
As per claim 17, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination may not further, specifically teach wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to reschedule the appointment for another available date and time displayed on the calendar.
Tompkins et al. teaches:
--wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to reschedule the appointment for another available date and time displayed on the calendar (see: paragraphs [0014] and [0030] where there is a rescheduling of an appointment. A device here is requesting another time and date. The time and date are displayed in FIG. 14 of Wason).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to reschedule the appointment for another available date and time displayed on the calendar as taught by Tompkins et al. in the system as taught by Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination with the motivation(s) of optimizing appointments (see: paragraph [0002] of Tompkins et al.).
As per claim 18, Susarchick et al., Wason, and Tompkins et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Tompkins et al. further teaches wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar with the rescheduled appointment in real time (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a master calendar which is updated. This would include for a rescheduling).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination may not further, specifically teach wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to cancel the scheduled leukapheresis appointment.
Tompkins et al. teaches:
--wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to cancel the scheduled leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0016] where an indication of a cancellation is being sent. A device here is requesting to cancel the time and date).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein one of the client computing devices requests the scheduling module to cancel the scheduled leukapheresis appointment as taught by Tompkins et al. in the system as taught by Susarchick et al. and Wason in combination with the motivation(s) of optimizing appointments (see: paragraph [0002] of Tompkins et al.).
As per claim 20, Susarchick et al., Wason, and Tompkins et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. Susarchick et al. further teaches of a leukapheresis appointment (see: paragraph [0145] where there is an appointment for a procedure. Also see: paragraph [0044] where there is a leukapheresis procedure).
Tompkins et al. further teaches wherein the scheduling module updates the calendar with the canceled appointment in real time (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a master calendar which is updated. This would include for a cancellation).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 19, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684