DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 18 June 2026. No claims have been cancelled, claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 13-14, and 18-20 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s). New basis for rejection is noted, however.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) as below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is interpreting “a network interface” as being directed to the hardware components that provide connection to a/the network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 14 recite “using geolocation to determine the number of donors in the plasma center, each donor being a person positioned in the virtual queue”; however, parent independent claim 1 recites “receiving a request message … to donate plasma”, then “forming a reservation message regarding the donor and determined queue position of the donor, the reservation, or both the donor and the reservation” and “forming a confirmation message including the determined wait time and preferred arrival time for the donor”. It is noted that there is no indication of identifying donors – other than an identification number received for those entering the queue (see Applicant p. 24, line 16 as submitted, ¶ 0111 as published), but that is for the queue and not for the building, center, or facility – one could be in the queue, but not in the center itself. Parent claim 1 reflects this: a person making a reservation is placed in the virtual queue even though they are not yet at the plasma center – they are merely provided “a preferred arrival time”. Therefore, at least claim 5 is indefinite since it is uncertain if the geolocation is being used to determine the number of persons actually physically in the plasma center, or the number of persons in the virtual queue (which may include some or many that are not actually in the plasma center, but only scheduled to arrive at some future time).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 9 and 18 indicate detecting presence of a donor in a prescribed vicinity, then “forwarding an invitation message to the donor, in response to receipt of the ID information”. However, this is referring to the same donor as the “a donor” at claim 1, and regardless whether this were to happen or be performed before, during, or after the activities at claim 1, there does not appear to be anything at claim 9 or 18 that further limits any element or limitation at parent claims 1 or 10. All the same activities would be performed in the same order at the parent claims, without any apparent change or limit regarding scope or breadth. As such, claims 9 and 18 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method (claims 1-9), system (claims 10-18), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19-20), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method of managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center, the method comprising: receiving a request message via a wide area network or a local area network indicating a request from a donor to donate plasma at the plasma donor center, the plasma donor center having a plurality of apheresis devices in communication with a blood establishment computer system (BECS) via the wide area network or the local area network; receiving recent plasma donor center data from two or more of a) a plasma donor management system, b) a plasma center queue management system, or c) a donor plasma donation mobile application, the recent plasma donor center data comprising one or more of current apheresis device usage, location information relating to the donor via the donor plasma donation mobile application, and apheresis device stage information; determining the wait time within the plasma donor center as a function of plasma center data received from at least two of a) a plasma donor management system, b) a plasma center queue management system, or c) a donor plasma donation mobile application, the plasma center data including the apheresis device stage information received from the plurality of apheresis devices, the apheresis device stage information indicating a procedure stage of each of the plurality of apheresis devices; positioning donor information in a determined queue position of a virtual queue to form a donor reservation; forming a reservation message regarding the donor and determined queue position of the donor, the reservation, or both the donor and the reservation, and forwarding the reservation message to the BECS, the reservation message being forwarded via the wide area network or the local area network; and forming a confirmation message including the determined wait time and preferred arrival time for the donor, and forwarding the confirmation message toward the donor via the network.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are analyzed in the same manner since claim 10 is directed to a plasma donation system for managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center, the system comprising: a network interface in communication with a wide area network or a local area network, the network interface configured to perform the same or similar activities, what the donor center data comprises, a timer circuit coupled with the interface, and a queue scheduler circuit for performing the same or similar operations as at claim 1 above, and claim 19 is directed to a computer program product for use on a computer system for managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon, the computer readable program code comprising program code for performing the same or similar operations as at claim 1 above.
The dependent claims (claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate determining donor eligibility (claims 2 and 11), receiving an eligibility message (claims 3 and 12), what the data comprises (i.e., number of donors and current stage of each donor, and/or number of apheresis devices) (at claims 4, 7, 13, 16, and 20), using geolocation to determine the number of donors in the plasma center (claims 5 and 14), the data including the number of donors scheduled to arrive in a time frame based on queue spots (claims 6 and 15), the wait time determined as a function of data from one or more of donor management, queue management, mobile application, and/or an apheresis device (claims 8 and 17), a geolocation application detecting a donor in a prescribed vicinity and forwarding ID information, where further messaging may occur (claims 9 and 18).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of making and confirming a reservation for plasma donation; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of subject matter. The Examiner notes that it appears the main focus or direction of the claims is the sending and receiving of messages (as relation between people and/or business relations), so as to form the queue and order the positions within the queue while estimating times. As such, although some activities can be performed mentally (including by use or pen/pencil and paper), the larger focus appears to be on the relations/relationships associated with the queueing.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are using a wide area network or a local area network for communication (at claim 1), a system comprising: an interface in communication with a wide area network or a local area network, a timer, and a queue scheduler (where the interface, timer, and queue scheduler may or may not be hardware or software components) (at claim 10), and a computer program product for use on a computer system, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon, the computer readable program code comprising program code (at claim 19).
These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding 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.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant page 25, line 10 to page 28, line 3 (as submitted, ¶¶ 0114-0124 as published) are the only apparent description of the system or computer(s) that are envisioned for performing the claim activities, but merely describe generic components such as “a wired or wireless device” (p. 25, line 12 as submitted, ¶ 0114 as published), “a processor or control unit/entity (controller) 704 to execute instructions or software …, and a memory 706 to store data and/or instructions” (p. 25, lines 17-19 as submitted, ¶ 0115 as published), “Processor 704 may be programmable and capable of executing software or other instructions stored in memory or on other computer media to perform the various tasks and functions described” (p. 25, lines 27-29 as submitted, ¶ 0116 as published), “may be implemented at least in part in any conventional computer programming language” (p. 27, lines 4-5 as submitted, ¶ 0121 as published), etc.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0103968, hereinafter Case) in view of Durham et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0148121, hereinafter Durham) .
Claim 1: Case discloses a method of managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center, the method comprising:
receiving a request message via a wide area network or a local area network indicating a request from a donor to donate plasma at the plasma donor center, the plasma donor center having a plurality of apheresis devices in communication with a blood establishment computer system (BECS) via the wide area network or the local area network (see Case at least at, e.g., ¶¶ 0047, “Selecting to schedule a donation 111, for example, provides a donation scheduling interface 120. Via the donation scheduling interface 120, a user can view nearby blood center(s) 121, view upcoming events at blood centers in the area 122, schedule a donation at a default blood center 123, etc.” – indicating requesting to donate, 0057, “FIG. 4 shows an example product selection interface 420 to access year to date donation statistics based on selection of that option 113 via the main menu 110. The product selection view 420 provides a selectable list of blood products, such as platelets 421, plasma 422, red blood cells 423, and whole blood 424. Selecting a product, such as plasma 422, provides a view of year-to-date donation statistics 430 for the selected blood component” – indicating plasma donations, 0137, indicating “apheresis donations” as available or performed, 0059, “A technologies interface 520 includes a set of available devices or technologies available for blood product collection. Using the technologies screen 520, the user can access information about the different devices” – indicating a plurality of donation devices, 0075, “Selecting a particular instrument from the layout 931 provides more detailed status information 940 for that device. The device status (e.g., Autopheresis-C™ Plasma #5) provides additional information 941 regarding a procedure being executed at the selected device, such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator, etc.” – indicating multiple Autopheresis-C apheresis devices; citation hereafter by number only) ;
receiving recent plasma donor center data from two or more of a) a plasma donor management system (0051, “As illustrated, for example, in FIG. 2, selection of the goals and progress 112 option in the main menu 110 provides a donation goals screen 220. The donation goals 220 provide one or more blood component donation goals, such as platelets (e.g., 20 products) 221, red blood cells (e.g., 5 units) 222, plasma (e.g., 10 liters) 223, etc.”), b) a plasma center queue management system, or c) a donor plasma donation mobile application (0073, “an example mobile device 900 including an administration application 901 for blood center and/or collection device administrators”, 0074, “status view 930 includes a layout 931 of one or more instruments at a facility, for example. The screen layout 931 can match a room layout, for example. One or more colors and/or other indicators can be used to determine instrument status (e.g., in-use, available, instrument alarm, etc.)”, 0075, “Selecting a particular instrument from the layout 931 provides more detailed status information 940 for that device. The device status (e.g., Autopheresis-C™ Plasma #5) provides additional information 941 regarding a procedure being executed at the selected device, such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator, etc.”)
the recent plasma donor center data comprising one or more of current apheresis device usage (0075, “Selecting a particular instrument from the layout 931 provides more detailed status information 940 for that device. The device status (e.g., Autopheresis-C™ Plasma #5) provides additional information 941 regarding a procedure being executed at the selected device, such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator, etc.”), location information relating to the donor via the donor plasma donation mobile application (0044, “donor application communicates with a donor's mobile device (e.g., a phone) based on donor characteristic(s) and/or donor location”), and apheresis device stage information (0007, “The system is to dynamically update the status for each instrument via communication between the mobile device and one or more blood collection facilities at which the one or more blood collection instruments are located”);
the plasma donor center as a function of plasma center data received from at least two of a) a plasma donor management system (0051, “As illustrated, for example, in FIG. 2, selection of the goals and progress 112 option in the main menu 110 provides a donation goals screen 220. The donation goals 220 provide one or more blood component donation goals, such as platelets (e.g., 20 products) 221, red blood cells (e.g., 5 units) 222, plasma (e.g., 10 liters) 223, etc.”), b) a plasma center queue management system, or c) a donor plasma donation mobile application, the plasma center data including the apheresis device stage information received from the plurality of apheresis devices, the apheresis device stage information indicating a procedure stage of each of the plurality of apheresis devices (0073, “an example mobile device 900 including an administration application 901 for blood center and/or collection device administrators”, 0074, “status view 930 includes a layout 931 of one or more instruments at a facility, for example. The screen layout 931 can match a room layout, for example. One or more colors and/or other indicators can be used to determine instrument status (e.g., in-use, available, instrument alarm, etc.)”, 0075, “Selecting a particular instrument from the layout 931 provides more detailed status information 940 for that device. The device status (e.g., Autopheresis-C™ Plasma #5) provides additional information 941 regarding a procedure being executed at the selected device, such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator, etc.”);
Case, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the wait time within the donor center, positioning donor information in a determined queue position of a virtual queue to form a donor reservation; forming a reservation message regarding the donor and determined queue position of the donor, the reservation, or both the donor and the reservation, and forwarding the reservation message to the BECS, the reservation message being forwarded via the wide area network or the local area network; and forming a confirmation message including the determined wait time and preferred arrival time for the donor, and forwarding the confirmation message toward the donor via the network. Where Case discloses a confirmation screen where the user can confirm the appointment so as to reserve the time at the selected blood center (Case at least at 0049), Durham teaches “an online-reservation service that allows users to identify and book a best reservation option for emergency/urgent care, and to reschedule to a new best reservation if conditions change (for better or worse) at the selected or another nearby care facility after the reservation is booked” (Durham at 0005), the service can then check with the “best”, “recommended”, or “closest” hospital (i.e., facility or location) “to determine if it has any available reservations for the queue selected by the user” (Durham at 0070, 0071, 0072), “If there are reservations available in the selected queue at the subject hospital (the first one or a next one), then at step 152 the process 112 checks with the subject hospital to determine if there is currently a wait time for the queue”, but blackout periods of time may put a “limit on the number of reservations (i.e., the ‘throttle’) for the current time period (e.g., one hour) for the queue” (Durham at 0073), where “If sometime afterward conditions at the subject hospital have changed and affected its reservation scheduling (for better or worse), the process 200 enables the hospital to update its ER schedule information (e.g., on the server 6 and/or the hospital device 8) to reflect that. So if at step 212 the process 200 determines that any of the queues and/or any of the capacity characteristics (e.g., wait time, blackout period, or limit on number of reservations per time period) have been updated by the hospital, then at step 214 it checks if the reservation is still available in light of the updates. It not, then the process 200 goes to step 206 to run through the rescheduling process described above and repeat the queue process 100 as needed. And if it is, then the reservation remains intact (the process 200 is finished by using the reservation)” (Durham at 0084) so that a donor, patient, or parent can select a preferable option rather than “wait for unknown hours” or put up with “a long wait time and a lengthy blackout period” and “display these options, with the third-closest hospital recommended and thus ranked above the closest hospital, because its reservation time is the soonest one that can be met (the hospital can be reached in time so the reservation is not missed)” (Durham at 0078). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to determine a wait time, determine a queue position, and send reservation and confirmation messages reflecting the information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow a person to not have to wait by selecting a preferable location with availability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the donation scheduling of Case with the reservation selection of Durham in order to determine a wait time, determine a queue position, and send reservation and confirmation messages reflecting the information so as to allow a person to not have to wait by selecting a preferable location with availability.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to determine a wait time, determine a queue position, and send reservation and confirmation messages reflecting the information is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow a person to not have to wait by selecting a preferable location with availability as explained above.
Claim 2: Case in view of Durham discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising determining donor eligibility before forwarding the confirmation message (Case at 0038, “The application can notify a donor when he/she is able/available (e.g., based on donation guideline eligibility and/or schedule availability) to donate”, 0049, “a view of available times 150 is provided, which tells the user his or her next eligibility to donate and provides one or more available times 41, 142, 143 for a selected blood center”).
Claim 3: Case in view of Durham discloses the method of claim 2 further comprising receiving an eligibility message from the BECS confirming donor eligibility . (Case at 0038, “The application can notify a donor when he/she is able/available (e.g., based on donation guideline eligibility and/or schedule availability) to donate”, 0049, “a view of available times 150 is provided, which tells the user his or her next eligibility to donate and provides one or more available times 41, 142, 143 for a selected blood center”)
Claim 7: Case in view of Durham discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the recent plasma center data comprises the number of apheresis devices in use in the plasma center at a given time (Case at 0066, “FIG. 7 depicts an example product availability calculator 701 available via a mobile and/or other computing device 700. The calculator 701 provides a view 710 of devices being used at a facility, such as an Alyx™ system 711, an Amicus™ separator 712, and an Autopheresis-C™ system 713”, see Fig. 7).
Claim 8: Case in view of Durham discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the wait time within the plasma center is determined as a function of plasma donor center data received from each of a) the plasma donor management systems (0051, “As illustrated, for example, in FIG. 2, selection of the goals and progress 112 option in the main menu 110 provides a donation goals screen 220. The donation goals 220 provide one or more blood component donation goals, such as platelets (e.g., 20 products) 221, red blood cells (e.g., 5 units) 222, plasma (e.g., 10 liters) 223, etc.”), b) the plasma center queue management system (Durham at 0005, 0070-0073, 0078, 0084, as combined above and using the rationale as at the combination above)
, c) donor plasma donation mobile application (0073, “an example mobile device 900 including an administration application 901 for blood center and/or collection device administrators”, 0074, “status view 930 includes a layout 931 of one or more instruments at a facility, for example. The screen layout 931 can match a room layout, for example. One or more colors and/or other indicators can be used to determine instrument status (e.g., in-use, available, instrument alarm, etc.)”, 0075, “Selecting a particular instrument from the layout 931 provides more detailed status information 940 for that device. The device status (e.g., Autopheresis-C™ Plasma #5) provides additional information 941 regarding a procedure being executed at the selected device, such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator, etc.”), or d) at least one apheresis device (0066, “FIG. 7 depicts an example product availability calculator 701 available via a mobile and/or other computing device 700. The calculator 701 provides a view 710 of devices being used at a facility, such as an Alyx™ system 711, an Amicus™ separator 712, and an Autopheresis-C™ system 713. Selecting any of these devices 711, 712, 713 launches a donor information screen 720. The donor information view 720 includes a plurality of values, such as height 721, weight 722, hematocrit 723, sex 724, platelet precount 725, etc., for the donor”).
Claim 9: Case in view of Durham discloses the method of claim 1 wherein a geolocation application detects the donor and forwards ID information across the network indicating the presence of the donor in a prescribed vicinity of the plasma donor center, the method further comprising forwarding a request message to the donor, in response to receipt of the ID information, requesting a donation from the donor and/or the wait time (Case at 0040, “In certain examples, based on tracking of a donor's location, a nearby donation facility can compare a current inventory (and associated need) with the tracked donor's information (e.g., blood type, eligibility, etc.)”, 0042, “For example, the donor's goal/progress/location information is pushed to a donation center computer, and then the donation center can send the donor reminders to donate”).
Claims 10-12 and 16-19 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-3 and 7-9 above since Case discloses a plasma donation system … comprising: an interface in communication with a wide area network or a local area network, a timer, and a queue scheduler configured to perform the same or similar functions as at claims 1-3 and 7-9 above (see Case at least at 0038, Figs. 1-5, 0215) for claims 10-12 and 16-18, and a computer program product for use on a computer system for managing plasma donation throughput of a plasma donor center, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon, the computer readable program code comprising program code for performing the same or similar activities as at claim 1 (see Case at least at 0219).
Claims 4-6, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Durham in further view of Dent (U.S. Patent 11,600,395) .
Claims 4, 13, and 20: Case in view of Durham discloses the method, system, and computer program product of claims 1, 10, and 19, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plasma center data comprises the number of donors in the plasma system and the current stage of each donor. Dent, though, teaches “to assist [patients] in better timing their arrivals …. using an artificial intelligence algorithm or machine learning model, the system may calculate a current wait-time, determine the number of other waiting patients, determine a patient's current location (via a geolocation technology associated with the patient's device and/or app), obtain traffic information from a third-party database, and predict the amount of time it will take the patient to arrive at the provider facility” (Dent at column:lines 8:45-53; citation hereafter by number only). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the donation scheduling of Case in view of Durham with the patient count of Dent in order to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time as explained above.
Claims 5 and 14: Case in view of Durham discloses the method and system of claims 1 and 10, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising using geolocation to determine the number of donors in the plasma center, further wherein the recent plasma center data comprises the determined number of donors in the plasma center. Dent, though, teaches “to assist [patients] in better timing their arrivals …. using an artificial intelligence algorithm or machine learning model, the system may calculate a current wait-time, determine the number of other waiting patients, determine a patient's current location (via a geolocation technology associated with the patient's device and/or app), obtain traffic information from a third-party database, and predict the amount of time it will take the patient to arrive at the provider facility” (Dent at 8:45-53). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the donation scheduling of Case in view of Durham with the patient count of Dent in order to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time as explained above.
Claims 6 and 15: Case in view of Durham discloses the method and system of claims 1 and 10, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the recent plasma center data comprises the number of donors scheduled to arrive at the plasma center during a prescribed time frame, the number of donors determined based on queue spots secured broken down by the scheduled donor arrival time or time slots. Dent, though, teaches “to assist [patients] in better timing their arrivals …. using an artificial intelligence algorithm or machine learning model, the system may calculate a current wait-time, determine the number of other waiting patients, determine a patient's current location (via a geolocation technology associated with the patient's device and/or app), obtain traffic information from a third-party database, and predict the amount of time it will take the patient to arrive at the provider facility” (Dent at 8:45-53). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the donation scheduling of Case in view of Durham with the patient count of Dent in order to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to determine the number of patients or donors and the arrival of scheduled patients or donors, including by using geolocation, is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assist in better aiding patients in arriving on time as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the § 112 interpretation and rejections (Remarks at 8-12); however, the interpretation and rejections are overcome and withdrawn, so the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the § 101 rejections (Id. at 12-20), first discussing guidelines and the Alice framework (Id. at 12-14), then alleging that the claims are not one of certain methods of organizing human activity (Id. at 14-17) since “the claims recite determining the wait time within the plasma donor center as a function of plasma center data including the apheresis device stage information ... indicating a procedure stage of each of the plurality of apheresis devices. This is a technical operation performed on real-time machine-state data reported by a plurality of networked apheresis devices-not an organization of human activity” (Id. at 15). However, Applicant’s background indicates that the current state of the art is that plasma centers and donors use donor software and mobile applications to track the donors and “the apheresis device, including procedure information such as start time, stop time, stage, status, cycle number, cycle time, volume, weight, errors, and other related information” (Spec. at p. 1, lines 19-29) for convenience and information in donors and centers planning donations (Id. at p. 2, lines 1-7). Using this information to estimate wait times and make a reservation is organizing human activity – both in the business relations of the plasma center(s) and the personal behavior or relationships between people that may be considering or requesting a donation.
Applicant then repeats claim 1 (Remarks at 16), and alleges the claims are somehow different from Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp since “the element of ‘determining the wait time within the plasma donor center as a function of plasma center data received from at least two of a) a plasma donor management system, b) a plasma center queue management system, or c) a donor plasma donation mobile application, the plasma center data including the apheresis device stage information received from the plurality of apheresis devices, the apheresis device stage information indicating a procedure stage of each of the plurality of apheresis devices’ has never been a process performed in the human mind or with pen and paper” (Id. at 17). However, novelty and/or prior art analysis is not considered in eligibility analysis. As indicated above per Applicant’s specification, Applicant admits and acknowledges that the relevant data is typically reported by the same devices, where it appears self-evident that someone could organize the activities, such as by calendaring time slots either by hand (i.e., using pen/pencil and paper) or the use of a general-purpose computer. The Examiner notes having scheduled meetings, conferences, interviews, etc. for decades using pen/pencil and paper and/or using a general-purpose computer.
Applicant then argues the claims integrate into a practical application (Remarks at 17-19), again repeating claim 1 (Id. at 18), alleging that determining the wait time according to the received data “is a specific technical mechanism” (Id. at 19); however, that is part of the abstract idea that is not considered in relation to a practical application – only the additional element(s) are to be considered for practical application analysis.
Applicant then argues the claims are “adding significantly more” and not well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity; however, the additional elements are indicated as insignificant on other bases (not WURC), and the claims as a whole offer little or nothing more than the expected result of the activities – whether performed by a person or by a general-purpose computer.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 20-23), first repeating the amended portion of claim 1 (Id. at 21), and alleging that the wait time estimation is not taught by Case (Id. at 21-22), and that Durham does not use data from the same device(s) as at the claims (Id. at 22). However, Case provides the data indicated, and Applicant apparently acknowledges this (“Case discloses displaying status for a selected device, ‘such as time remaining, elapsed time, operator’ and a calculator showing devices in use at a facility. But the Office Action itself concedes that ‘Case does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the wait time within the donor center’. Case displays the status of an individual device; it does not determine a plasma-center wait time” – Id. at 21). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument(s).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apheresis, from Cleveland Clinic, dated 7 February 2024, downloaded 20 April 2026 from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/apheresis, indicating that “In apheresis, a centrifuge machine draws blood from your body and spins the blood to separate its elements. The machine sets aside certain elements and returns the remaining blood cells, platelets and plasma to your body” (at p. 1).
McCollough et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0013350, hereinafter McCollough) indicates “A system for offer based restaurant reservations comprises a processor and a memory. The processor is configured to: receive a request for a reservation including a set of attributes such as a date or date range, a time range, a location, a cuisine, and a party size; determine a set of available reservations based on an actual table availability for the date, time, and the party size; determine one or more offers based on the date, time, and the party size; determine an overlapping subset between the set of available reservations and the one or more offers; and provide an indication of the overlapping subset. The memory is coupled to the processor and is configured to provide the processor with instructions” (at Abstract) as analogous to making reservations based on time and resource availability for plasma donations.
Karasick et al., How do I initiate and maintain a mobile apheresis service in the era of cellular therapy. Transfusion. 2023; 63(1): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17143 downloaded 21 April 2026 from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/trf.17143, indicating “Safe and efficient operation of a mobile apheresis service must consider acquisition of physical assets, such as apheresis sites, personnel, equipment and supplies, communication devices, and transportation vehicles, and optimize organizational aspects, such as staff responsibilities, service partnerships, logistics management, case scheduling and triage, and billing” (at Abstract, Results).
Benjamin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0049542, hereinafter Benjamin), discussing “Systems, articles of manufacture, and methods for managing blood processing operations and data for one or more blood component collection facilities are provided. An example system for networking the blood component collection facility includes a system computer including a memory and a communication interface. The system computer is linked to a plurality of input devices for tracking donors, operators, soft goods, and blood component collection instruments with respect to one or more blood product collection procedures. The system computer is also linked to at least one administrative level computing device to monitor blood component collection activities throughout the blood component collection facility and to facilitate decision making with respect to allocation of at least one of donors, operators, soft goods, and blood component collection instruments based on information regarding at least one of donors, operators, soft goods, and blood component collection instruments” (at Abstract).
Schoendorfer et al., Platelet collection with the Autopheresis-C apheresis system. Vox Sang. 1990;58(2):100-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.1990.tb02070.x. PMID: 2339518, downloaded from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339518/ on 22 April 2026, indicating that Autopheresis-C is an apheresis system (at Title and p. 100).
Pina et al., Using automation to manage donor engagement and fine-tune supply and demand during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Transfusion and Apheresis Science, Volume 61, Issue 4, 2022, 103420, ISSN 1473-0502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2022.103420. Downloaded from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473050222000878 on 27 August 2026, indicating “The purpose of this study was to quantify how automation was used to fine-tune supply and demand and increase donor engagement during the first year of the pandemic” (at Background) and “With the cancelation of mobile blood drives, fixed sites increased total apheresis procedures by 37% and increased turns per bed by 46% whereas less products were collected per donor. By collecting only what was needed, platelet expiration rate decreased from 6.8% (pre-pandemic) to less than 4%. Donor engagement as measured by donor frequency increased from 1.6 in January 2020 to 1.8 in March 2021” (at Results).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights