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 .
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/557,304 and has an effective filing date of 23 February 2024.
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 1,2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1,2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a graphical user interface, a system comprising a display and one or more processors a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are within a statutory category (or are interpreted to be within a statutory category for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes).
Step 2A1
The limitations of determining an itinerary associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the itinerary, a number of booked visits associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the itinerary, slack associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the slack, one or more available visit times for the healthcare resource… as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a display, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the display, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium, this claim encompasses a person determining an itinerary associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the itinerary, a number of booked visits associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the itinerary, slack associated with the healthcare resource; determining, based on the slack, one or more available visit times for the healthcare resource in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a display, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium that implements the identified abstract idea. These are not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element of causing display of a graphical user interface comprising the one or more available visit times was determined to be “apply it.” MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide a practical application. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a display, one or more processors, non-transitory computer readable medium that implements to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
The additional element of causing display of a graphical user interface comprising the one or more available visit times was determined to be “apply it.” MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/00056071 (hereafter Kogan) in view of Chen (Appointment Overbooking with Different Time Slot Structures).
Regarding Claim 1
Kogan teaches:
A method comprising: determining an itinerary associated with a healthcare resource; [Kogan at Figure 2A teaches generating an appointment schedule with travel routes dynamically based on optimization factors, incorporating real-time changes in the patient data, the client input, the optimization factors and appointments via a mapping using a global navigation satellite system. This teaches determining an itinerary associated with a healthcare resource. The appointment schedule with travel routes based on a variety of factors (as listed) are interpreted as the itinerary.]
determining, based on the itinerary, a number of booked visits associated with the healthcare resource; [Kogan at Figure 2A teaches generating an appointment schedule with travel routes dynamically based on optimization factors, incorporating real-time changes in the patient data, the client input, the optimization factors and appointments via a mapping using a global navigation satellite system. Kogan teaches at para. [0043] the client input further comprises, for example, dates and times of availability of the healthcare providers and the onsite care coordinators over a preconfigured period of time, for example, the next thirty days. This teaches determining, based on the itinerary, a number of booked visits associated with the healthcare resource. The generated appointments are the number of determined booked visits.]
determining, based on the itinerary, slack associated with the healthcare resource; [The specification at para. [0048] teaches that the total amount of time built in for these potential available visits may be called slack. Kogan at Figure 2A teaches generating an appointment schedule with travel routes dynamically based on optimization factors, incorporating real-time changes in the patient data, the client input, the optimization factors and appointments via a mapping using a global navigation satellite system. The appointment schedule with travel routes is interpreted to be the total amount of time built in for these potential visits, or slack. This teaches determining, based on the itinerary, slack associated with the healthcare resource.]
[…]
and causing display of a graphical user interface comprising the one or more available visit times. [Kogan teaches at para. [0128] the output generation module sends the generated schedule to the client and in turn, to the healthcare providers and the onsite care coordinators, and to the patient to indicate an appointment date and time for the home visit for patient care. Kogan teaches at Fig. 1 Item 108 a display screen and at 108a a graphical user interface (GUI) in communication with the output generation module at Item 106c. Collectively, this teaches and causing display of a graphical user interface comprising the one or more available visit times.]
Kogan may not explicitly teach:
determining, based on the slack, one or more available visit times for the healthcare resource;
Chen teaches:
determining, based on the slack, one or more available visit times for the healthcare resource; [Chen teaches at pg. 239 for this reason, in section 3.3. we consider this appointment scheduling problem in this setting and propose a deterministic equivalent of a stochastic mixed integer linear programming model, to assign a fixed number of patients to the pre-defined time slots of the session. The pre-defined time slots of the session are the slack.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the system and method for optimizing home visit appointments and related travel of Kogan to the appointment overbooking with different time slot structures of Chen with the motivation of alleviating the impact of unattended appointments resulting in underperformance of a healthcare service provider (Chen at the Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2 and 3
Due to their similarity to Claim 1, Claims 2 and 3 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0105319 A1 (hereafter Ahmed) teaches care provider routing system is a smartphone enabled app that shows a patient itinerary in the Figures, which is at least tangentially related to the subject matter in the specification.
US 2023/0326584 A1 (hereafter Nadelson) teaches a method for scheduling healthcare related services involves presenting service(s) available to the user based on the data associated with the user and scheduling a time and location for the clinician to provide the services.
Vetterlein, Malte W., et al. "Impact of travel distance to the treatment facility on overall mortality in US patients with prostate cancer." Cancer 123.17 (2017): 3241-3252. Vetterlein teaches about the impact of travel distance on mortality in patients with prostate cancer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN ISAAC EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-5972. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-7:00pm, off Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.I.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683