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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Objections to the specification and claims are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the specification and to claims 8-10.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims increase the efficiency with which a processor can schedule appointments, thereby improving its operation. Examiner disagrees. The computer processor merely automates the abstract idea. Any speed or efficiency comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Similarly, it was found that “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer”, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) does not show an improvement in computer-functionality. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applicant also asserts the detailed processor operations cannot practically be performed by the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Humans are more than capable of performing predicting operations. This type of observation or evaluation to predict a number of reservations can be performed in the mind and is part of the steps or instruction one would follow to generate the appointments. As such, the predicting step is abstract. Further, the repeated performing of the assigning, predicting, identification and assignment can also practically be performed by the human mind. The steps involve observations and evaluations to assign appointments to guests. In addition, the steps are instruction one would follow to generate the appointments.
Applicant describes the efficiency comes from the claimed abstract scheduling process. A more efficient abstract idea it still abstract. Without additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101. Here, in claim 1, the additional elements are the apparatus comprising a processor and memory. These merely function to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by offering improvements to the computer or to the technology or technical field. The method claim 14, only recites the abstract idea without any additional elements. Claim 15 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with program to cause a computer to implement the method. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the independent claims recite:
set a plurality of appointment slots for multiple meetings prepared by the host in advance with different guests, each guest having their own appointment slot and corresponding meeting with the host;
store attribute information of the different guests who make appointments from among the plurality of appointment slots;
receive desired appointment slots of the plurality of guests;
assign a different appointment for each guest from among the plurality of appointment slots based on the desired appointment slot of each guest and the attribute information of each guest, thereby improving the efficiency with which the apparatus manages the assigning of different appointments with different guests by reducing the number of rescheduling procedures required to be performed;
identify a target guest from among the plurality of guests;
provisionally assign desired appointment slots of unassigned guests other than the target guest to the plurality of appointment slots;
calculate a predicted number of assigned reservations for each of the plurality of appointment slots based on the provisional assignment;
identify an appointment slot having the smallest predicted number of assigned reservations among the plurality of appointment slots;
assign an appointment of the target guest to the identified appointment slot;
update the unassigned guests after assigning the appointment of the target guest; and
repeatedly perform, for the updated unassigned guests, the provisional assignment, the calculation of the predicted number of assigned reservations, the identification of the appointment slot, and the assignment of the appointment of the target guest.
The claims are considered mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim recites observations and evaluations for appointment management that can be practically performed with pen and paper or in the mind of a human. Additionally, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to setting appointments which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The nominal recitation of additional computer elements in claims 1, 13 and 15 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Independent claim 13 recites an apparatus and terminal device which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Independent claim 14 recites no additional limitations outside the abstract idea. Independent claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium that causes a computer to execute the steps of the method. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2 and 3 recite steps to reassign an appointment and adding priority to guests who have changed their appointment which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity as in claim 1. The apparatus and the device in claim 2 amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claim 4 recites setting attribute information of a guest which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity as in claim 1. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 5 and 6 set forth a description of the host, the guest and the appointment slot and establishes attribute information which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity as in claim 1. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 7-12 recite steps of assigning appointments based on guest priority which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity as in claim 1. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 16-20 recite steps of assigning appointments based on specific criteria which is mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity as in claim 1. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with 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, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art including Megahed et al, US 2019/0303878, Bhogal et al, US 2010/0076802, and Harla et al, US 2013/0122479, does not explicitly disclosed the invention as claimed. Specifically, the references, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose identify a target guest from among the plurality of guests; provisionally assign desired appointment slots of unassigned guests other than the target guest to the plurality of appointment slots; calculate a predicted number of assigned reservations for each of the plurality of appointment slots based on the provisional assignment; identify an appointment slot having the smallest predicted number of assigned reservations among the plurality of appointment slots; assign an appointment of the target guest to the identified appointment slot; update the unassigned guests after assigning the appointment of the target guest; and repeatedly perform, for the updated unassigned guests, the provisional assignment, the calculation of the predicted number of assigned reservations, the identification of the appointment slot, and the assignment of the appointment of the target guest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tompkins et al, US 2017/0024704 – System and Method for Scheduling Appointments - system and method dynamically optimize a number of appointments being scheduled within a range of time using a distributed computing system suitable for providing a self-service model for patient driven scheduling of appointments
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights