DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that Claim 6 of Applicant’s claims has overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- scheduling and rescheduling diagnostic testing appointments;
- scheduling configured to assign appointments based on clinic availability and patient proximity;
- monitoring that tracks appointment status and detects delays;
- allows rescheduling or cancellation based on clinic wait times.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to medical services which are commonly commercial;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages and coordinates behavior and interactions of medical service users and medical service personnel.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a computer-implemented system; using artificial intelligence; an AI-based engine; module; a communication interface: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Accordingly, the 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(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-8, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- real-time (claims 2 and 6);
- GPS or IP-based geolocation (claim 2);
- supervised learning (claim 3);
- automatically (claim 5);
- dual-view user interface with both list format and interactive map format (claim 6);
- display (claims 6-7);
- page (claim 7);
- transmits said data to software via secure API or encrypted messaging (claim 7);
- data exchanges that are HIPAA-compliant and adhere to healthcare interoperability standards (claim 8).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 7 merely sets forth particular information content to be output.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vegas, US 20220335339 A1, in view of Bender, US 20200090132 A1.
As per Claim 1, Vegas discloses:
- a computer-implemented system for scheduling and rescheduling diagnostic testing appointments using artificial intelligence (paragraph [0002] (system); paragraph [0026] (computer); paragraph [0031] (AI); paragraph [0033] (scheduling); paragraph [0036] (scheduling); paragraph [0041] (rescheduling); paragraph [0060] (use for wait time); paragraph [0067] (diagnostic; tests; schedule appointments; AI model));
- an AI-based scheduling engine configured to assign appointments based on clinic availability and patient proximity (paragraph [0063] (“As such, when an available appointment slot is retrieved, provided, displayed, suggested, etc., a probability of patient no-show associated with that appointment slot is also determined and provided. A schedule of appointments can be filled and/or otherwise adjusted according to a probability of patient no-show in one or more scheduled appointment slots, for example.”); paragraph [0067] (“For example, another AI model can process patients and exams/tests/procedures/etc. to be scheduled with respect to available personnel and equipment resources to provide those exams/tests/procedures/etc., combined with a likelihood of patient no-show and/or other analysis, and provide input to schedule appointments for the time period for the location.”); paragraph [0109] (“If the location has the right staff, then, at block 2230, then the location is evaluated to determine whether there is an available time slot that fits the time frame for the exam.”); paragraph [0111] (“For example, the location can be evaluated for proximity to patient home and/or work location, availability, insurance coverage, other preference, etc. If the location does not satisfy the patient's preference, then control reverts to block 2215 to search for another site.”));
- a monitoring module that tracks appointment status and detects delays (paragraph [0040] (“The model(s) 165 are trained using the prepared data from the data store 120 as further combined with other information such as weather 150, traffic, etc., via the data access layer 140. The data and constraints train, test, and transform the model(s) 165 into particular algorithms customized for the specific data set(s) 115 and observed patient pattern(s) for the particular healthcare environment's system(s) 110.”); paragraph [0060] (“FIG. 4 depicts an alternate example predictive analytics inferencing architecture 400 to identify/predict patient no-shows, similar to but different from the example architecture 100 of FIG. 1. While the example of FIG. 4 is directed to predicting and/or otherwise identifying patient no-shows (e.g., for scheduled exams, procedures, other appointments, etc.), the example architecture 400 can be leveraged for other analytics, modeling, and/or reactive prediction such as patient wait time, diagnosis, imaging insights, predictive reporting, etc.”); paragraph [0080] (monitored patient no-shows); paragraph [0084] (delay prediction); paragraph [0097] (delay));
Vegas fails to disclose a communication interface that allows rescheduling or cancellation based on clinic wait times. Bender discloses a communication interface that allows rescheduling or cancellation based on clinic wait times (paragraphs [0073]-[0078]; paragraph [0079] (“In some other embodiments, appointment tracking program 300 provides mitigation plans to the client (e.g., reschedule appointment, switch to another service provider) within notification 128. For example, appointment tracking program 300 identifies an available appointment with another service provider within the practice. Appointment tracking program 300 notifies the client of an available option to switch the appointment to the available service provider in order to avoid incurring the projected delay.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vegas such that the invention includes a communication interface that allows rescheduling or cancellation based on clinic wait times, as disclosed by Bender, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Vegas further discloses wherein the scheduling engine assigns appointments based on real-time availability of a plurality of diagnostic testing clinics, geographic proximity of the patient, urgency level of the test, and compatibility with the patient's health insurance network (paragraph [0036]; paragraph [0043]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0102]; paragraph [0109]; paragraph [0111]).
Vegas fails to disclose wherein the patient location is determined by GPS geolocation with consent. Bender further discloses wherein the patient location is determined by GPS geolocation with consent (paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vegas such that the patient location is determined by GPS geolocation with consent, as disclosed by Bender, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 3, Vegas further discloses wherein the AI model is trained using supervised learning on historical appointment data, including timestamps of patient arrivals, test durations, and no-show patterns, and refines wait time predictions and scheduling efficiency over time (paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0058]; paragraph [0059]; paragraphs [0081]-[0082]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0086]; paragraphs [0113]-[0115]).
As per Claim 4, the modified Vegas fails to disclose wherein the monitoring module triggers an alert to the patient when the projected wait time at the selected clinic exceeds a configurable threshold, and the communication interface presents the patient with options to remain, reschedule to a different clinic, or cancel the appointment. Bender further discloses wherein the monitoring module triggers an alert to the patient when the projected wait time at the selected clinic exceeds a configurable threshold, and the communication interface presents the patient with options to remain, reschedule to a different clinic, or cancel the appointment (paragraphs [0073]-[0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Vegas such that the monitoring module triggers an alert to the patient when the projected wait time at the selected clinic exceeds a configurable threshold, and the communication interface presents the patient with options to remain, reschedule to a different clinic, or cancel the appointment, as disclosed by Bender, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 5, the modified Vegas fails to disclose wherein upon patient acceptance of rescheduling, the system automatically reassigns the appointment, transfers patient data and diagnostic orders to the new clinic, and notifies both the original and reassigned clinics of the updated status. Bender further discloses wherein upon patient acceptance of rescheduling, the system automatically reassigns the appointment, transfers patient data and diagnostic orders to the new clinic, and notifies both the original and reassigned clinics of the updated status (paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0045]; paragraph [0068]; paragraphs [0073]-[0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Vegas such that upon patient acceptance of rescheduling, the system automatically reassigns the appointment, transfers patient data and diagnostic orders to the new clinic, and notifies both the original and reassigned clinics of the updated status, as disclosed by Bender, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vegas in view of Bender in further view of Fish, US 20180011973 A1.
As per Claim 7, Vegas further discloses transmits said appointment data to the clinic's scheduling software via secure API or encrypted messaging (paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0060]; paragraph [0092]).
The modified Vegas fails to disclose wherein a final appointment confirmation page displays clinic details, appointment time, patient and insurance information. Fish discloses wherein a final appointment confirmation page displays clinic details, appointment time, patient and insurance information (paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Vegas such that a final appointment confirmation page displays clinic details, appointment time, patient and insurance information, as disclosed by Fish, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vegas in view of Bender in further view of Bacastow, US 20230269255 A1.
As per Claim 8, the modified Vegas fails to disclose wherein all data exchanges are HIPAA-compliant and adhere to healthcare interoperability standards. Bacastow discloses wherein all data exchanges are HIPAA-compliant and adhere to healthcare interoperability standards (paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Vegas such that all data exchanges are HIPAA-compliant and adhere to healthcare interoperability standards, as disclosed by Bacastow, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Natali, US 20220019337 A1 (method and system for presenting an interactive map display);
b. Vanslette, US 20200234385 A1 (system and method for managing operations at an activity venue);
c. Sanderford, US 20170124526 A1 (system and method for scheduling patient appointments).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628