Patent Application 17977309 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT - Rejection

Patent Application 17977309 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT

Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT FOR ASYMMETRIC CAPACITY AND TIME UNIT ALLOCATION

Application Information

• Invention Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT FOR ASYMMETRIC CAPACITY AND TIME UNIT ALLOCATION
• Application Number: 17977309
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-10-31T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-10-31T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 705
• National Sub-Class: 007190
• Examiner Employee Number: 93087
• Art Unit: 3625
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0301977🔗
• US 0182575🔗
• US 0122751🔗
• US 0249878🔗
• US 0161097🔗
• US 0379173🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
1.		The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Status of the Application
2. 		Claims 1-21 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.

Priority
3.		The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Provisional Application 63/273,497 filed on 10/29/2021. Therefore, the earliest effective filing date of this application is 10/29/2021. 

Claim Objections
4.		Claims 1-10, 12-18 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: 
(A).	The 2nd limitation of Dependent Claims 3 and 8 recite the following: “receive input defining at least one appointment scheduling incentive and associated criteria for earning the at least one appointment [[ ]] incentive.” Examiner notes that the 2nd instance of “the at least one appointment incentive” should be amended as “the at least one appointment scheduling incentive” to be consistent with the first instance of “at least one appointment scheduling incentive”. Therefore, the 2nd limitation of Dependent Claims 3 and 8 should be amended as follows: “receive input defining at least one appointment scheduling incentive and associated criteria for earning the at least one appointment [[ ]] scheduling incentive.”
(B).	Dependent Claims 4 and 9 recite the following limitations: “display, on at least one display device, at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive having a monetary value.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claims 4 and 9 to read as follows: “display, on the at least one display device, the at least one option selectable to define [[ the appointment scheduling incentive having a monetary value.”
(C).	Dependent Claim 5 recites the following limitations: “The system of claim 1, wherein said user interface management instructions executable to configure the user interface management engine to identify a requestor's request for an appointment with a provider comprise instructions to receive appointment request data transmitted via a communications network.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 5 to read as follows: “The system of claim 1, wherein said user interface management instructions executable to configure the user interface management engine to identify [[ the requestor's request for [[ the appointment with [[ the provider comprise instructions to receive appointment request data transmitted via a communications network.”
(D).	Dependent Claim 10 recites the following limitations: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to configure the user interface management engine to identify a requestor's request for an appointment with a provider.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 10 to read as follows: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to configure the user interface management engine to identify a requestor's request for an appointment with [[ the provider.”
(E).	Dependent Claim 12 recites the following limitations: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying at least one patient that is ready to be assigned an appointment in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 12 to read as follows: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying at least one patient that is ready to be assigned to a particular patient an appointment in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient.”
(F). 	Dependent Claim 13 recites the following limitations: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying an incentive for at least one appointment and a user-selectable button selectable to cause automated assignment of at least one appointment to at least one patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive applicable to each appointment.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 13 to read as follows: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying an incentive for at least one appointment and a user-selectable button selectable to cause automated assignment of the at least one appointment to at least one patient on [[ the prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive applicable to each appointment.”
(G).	Dependent Claim 14 recites the following limitations: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying a first request for a first appointment for a first patient without an applicable incentive and a second request for a second appointment for a second patient with an applicable incentive, in conjunction with an identification of the applicable incentive for scheduling the second appointment for the second patient, along with a user-selectable button selectable to initiate assignment of an appointment to the second patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 14 to read as follows: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying a first request for a first appointment for a first patient without an applicable incentive and a second request for a second appointment for a second patient with an applicable incentive, in conjunction with an identification of the applicable incentive for scheduling the second appointment for the second patient, along with a user-selectable button selectable to initiate assignment of an appointment to the second patient on [[ the prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive.”
(H).	Dependent Claim 15 recites the following limitation: “The system of claim 6, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying a list comprising a plurality of requests for appointments for a plurality of patients, each of said plurality of requests being displayed in conjunction with [[ [[ an applicable criteria for scheduling an [[ appointment on a prioritized basis compatible with the applicable criteria for earning the incentive.” Examiner notes that the phrase “scheduling an appoint” where the word “appoint” is a claim informality and should be amended as “scheduling an appointment”. Also, it is unclear what is being referred to as “respective applicable for” as it appears to be missing context such as “criteria” in the instance. See Examiner suggestions for correcting these informalities shown above. 
(I). 	Dependent Claim 16 recites the following limitation: “The system of claim 15, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying the list, wherein the plurality of requests for appointments are sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with a preference.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 16 to read as follows: “The system of claim 15, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on [[ the computing device, [[ the graphical user interface window displaying the list, wherein the plurality of requests for appointments are sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with a preference.”
(J). 	Dependent Claim 17 recites the following limitation: “The system of claim 16, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying the list, sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with the preference, wherein the preference is one of a highest monetary value, a shortest time to payment, and a certain data sharing permission.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 17 to read as follows: “The system of claim 16, wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on [[ the computing device, [[ the graphical user interface window displaying the list, sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with the preference, wherein the preference is one of a highest monetary value, a shortest time to payment, and a certain data sharing permission.”
(K). 	Dependent Claim 21 recites the following limitation: “The computer program product of claim 20, further comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system to perform the method, the method further comprising: displaying, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying at least one appointment that is available to be scheduled for a particular patient in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 21 to read as follows: “The computer program product of claim 20, further comprising executable instructions that, when executed by [[ the processor, cause the computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system to perform the method, the method further comprising: displaying, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying at least one appointment that is available to be scheduled for a particular patient in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient.”
(L). 	The 1st claim limitation of Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20 recites the following limitation: “referencing stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling an appointments.” Examiner notes that the indication of “scheduling an appointments”, the word “an” is a singular word indicating “one appointment” however “appointments” are recited which indicates a plurality of more than one appointment which makes the phrase “scheduling an appointments” unclear. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend 1st claim limitation of Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20 to read as follows: “referencing stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for the scheduling [[]] of appointments.” Please clarify this. 
(M). 	The 4th claim limitation of Independent Claim 1 recites the following: “if the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then assign the available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the 4th claim limitation of Independent Claim 1 to read as follows: “if the provider has [[ the available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then assign the available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria.”
(N).	The 3rd claim limitations of Independent Claim 6, 18 and 20 recites the following: “if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then:.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the 3rd claim limitations of Independent Claim 6, 18 and 20 to read as follows: “if the provider has [[ the available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then:.”
(O).	The preamble of Independent Claim 20 recites the following: “A computer program product for implementing a method of controlling a display of a computerized device to provide asymmetry-based scheduling, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system to perform a method comprising:.” Examiner notes that there is a plurality of claim informalities shown here. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the preamble of Independent Claim 20 to read as follows: “A computer program product for implementing a method of controlling a display of a computerized device to provide asymmetry-based scheduling, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system to perform [[ the method comprising:.”
(P). 	Dependent Claim 2 recites the following limitations: “if the provider does not have [[ the available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then:
reference the stored appointment availability data applicable to the requestor's request, the appointment availability data defining parameters for adding additional appointment capacity.”
(Q). 	Dependent Claim 7 recites the following limitations: “if the provider does not have [[ the available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then: reference the stored appointment availability data applicable to an appointment for the patient, the appointment availability data defining parameters for adding additional appointment capacity.”
Appropriate corrections are required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5.		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.

6.		Claims 6-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A).	The claim limitations in Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20 recite the following: “referencing stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive.” Examiner notes that there is a lack of antecedent basis with respect to “the provider” in this limitation as this was not previously recited or referred to. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend these limitations in Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20 to recite the following: “referencing stored appointment availability data and determine whether [[a provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive.”
Additionally, Dependent Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Independent Claim 6 and failing to remedy them. 
Additionally, Dependent Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Independent Claim 18 and failing to remedy them. 
Additionally, Dependent Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Independent Claim 20 and failing to remedy them. 
(B).	The preamble of Independent Claim 18 recites the following: “A computer-implemented method of controlling a display of a computerized device to provide asymmetry-based scheduling, the computerized device comprising a memory operatively comprising a non-transitory data processor-readable medium, a data processor operative connected to the memory, the display and the user input component, and user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code stored in the memory and executable by the data processor, the method comprising:.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis with respect to “the user input component” as this was not previously recited or referred to. For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the preamble of Independent Claim 18 to read as follows: “A computer-implemented method of controlling a display of a computerized device to provide asymmetry-based scheduling, the computerized device comprising a memory operatively comprising a non-transitory data processor-readable medium, a data processor operative connected to the memory, the display and [[ a user input component, and user interface management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code stored in the memory and executable by the data processor, the method comprising:.”
Additionally, Dependent Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Independent Claim 18 and failing to remedy them. 
Appropriate corrections are required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7.		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.

8.		Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-21 are each focused to a statutory category namely, a “1st system” or a “1st apparatus” (Claims 1-5), a “2nd system” or a “2nd apparatus” (Claims 6-17), a “method” or a “process” (Claims 18-19) and a “non-transitory computer readable medium” or an “article of manufacture” (Claims 20-21).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claims 1 and 6);
“” (see Independent Claims 1 and 6);
“” (see Independent Claims 1 and 6);
“identify a requestor's request for an appointment with a provider” (see Independent Claim 1);
“reference stored incentive data applicable to the requestor's request, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling the appointment the requestor” (see Independent Claim 1);
“reference stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive” (see Independent Claim 1);
“if the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then assign the available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria” (see Independent Claim 1);
“display, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the requestor” (see Independent Claim 1);
“reference stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling an appointments” (see Independent Claim 6);
“reference stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive” (see Independent Claim 6);
“if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then” (see Independent Claim 6);
“assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria” (see Independent Claim 6);
“display, , an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient” (see Independent Claim 6);
“” (see Independent Claim 18);
“” (see Independent Claim 20);
“referencing stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling an appointments” (see Independent Claims 18 and 20);
“referencing stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive” (see Independent Claims 18 and 20);
“if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then” (see Independent Claims 18 and 20);
“assigning the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria” (see Independent Claims 18 and 20);
“displaying,  an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient” (see Independent Claims 18 and 20).
These abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior or relationships (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (2) commercial interactions (including business relations). 
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid, which in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
That is, other than reciting (e.g., “a processor”, “user interface management engine”, “a data processor”, “user interface”, “display device on a computing system”, “a memory”, “non-transitory data processor readable medium”, “computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system” & “user input component”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior or relationships (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (2) commercial interactions (including business relations) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-21 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor”, “a data processor”, “user interface management engine”, “user interface”, “display device on a computing system”, “a memory”, “non-transitory data processor readable medium”, “computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system” & “user input component”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Moreover, with respect to Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20, certain/particular limitations shown recite mere data outputting/data displaying such as (e.g., “display, on the display device of the computing system, the indication that the additional available appointment has been assigned to the requestor” (see Independent Claim 1) & “displaying, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient” (see Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20)) wherein which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-21 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a processor”, “a data processor”, “user interface management engine”, “user interface”, “display device on a computing system”, “a memory”, “non-transitory data processor readable medium”, “computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system” & “user input component”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (f) and MPEP § 2106.05 (h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (e.g., see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0070]: “The present invention may be operational with numerous other general-purpose or special-purpose computing system environments or configurations.”). 
With respect to Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20, certain/particular limitations shown recite mere data outputting/data displaying such as (e.g., “display, on the display device of the computing system, the indication that the additional available appointment has been assigned to the requestor” (see Independent Claim 1) & “displaying, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient” (see Independent Claims 6, 18 and 20)) wherein which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually.  There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.  Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-17, 19 and 21 recite substantially the same or similar additional elements as addressed above and when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with these limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent 1, 6, 18 and 20 along with further steps/details pertaining to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior or relationships (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (2) commercial interactions (including business relations) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments or opinions) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Furthermore, Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-17, 19 and 21 recite substantially the same or similar additional elements as addressed above in the discussion of Independent Claims 1, 6, 18 and 20, and when considered in view of the claim limitations both individually and in combination (as a whole) are insufficient to add a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also are not significantly more under step 2B for the same reasons as set forth above. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Dependent Claim 5: Examiner notes that the additional element of “a communication network” when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole), this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also secondly does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to identifying a requestor’s request for an appoint with a provider to receive appointment request data in scheduling-based environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)). Dependent Claims 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19 and 21: Examiner notes that the additional element of “graphical user interface window” when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole), this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also secondly does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to displaying appointments for a particular patient with an identification of a monetary or rewards-based incentive using a computer in a scheduling-based environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)).Dependent Claims 13-14: Examiner notes that the additional elements of “graphical user interface window” & “user-selectable button” when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole), these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also secondly do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or (2) limiting a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to displaying appointments for a particular patient with an identification of a monetary or rewards-based incentive using a computer in a scheduling-based environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)).
With respect to Dependent Claims 3 and 8, certain/particular limitations shown recite mere data gathering such as (e.g., “receive input defining at least one appointment scheduling incentive and associated criteria for earning the at least one appointment incentive” (see Dependent Claims 3 and 8)) and mere data outputting/data displaying such as (e.g., “display, on at least one display device, at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive and criteria for earning the incentive” (see Dependent Claims 3 and 8)), wherein which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Dependent Claims 3 and 8 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
With respect to Dependent Claims 4 and 9, certain/particular limitations shown recite mere data outputting/data displaying such as (e.g., “display, on at least one display device, at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive having a monetary value” (see Dependent Claims 4 and 9)), wherein which each of these claim limitations reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, these certain/particular claim limitations as demonstrated above for Dependent Claims 4 and 9 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually.  There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-21 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9.		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.  
10.		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.

11. 		Claims 1-10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, et. al., and in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) hereinafter Fox, et. al.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following:
- a memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.) operatively comprising a non-transitory data processor-readable medium (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati notes that the removable storage unit 518 may include a computer readable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data.)
- a data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.) operatively connected to the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.)
- user interface (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati teaches that the system 10 may include an interface for a provider 20 on a provider computer system 22 (e.g., a service provider module), an interface for a consumer 30 on a consumer device 32 such as a mobile phone, tablet, or computer (e.g., a consumer module), and a network 40. The consumer device 32 may be capable of executing an application specifically for providing an interface to the network-based platform. For example, the consumer device 32 may be a wireless device (e.g. smart phone or tablet) running an installed application.) management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code stored in the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.), said user interface (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0102-0104].) management instructions being executable by the data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.) to provide a user interface management engine configured to (see at least Karnati: Fig. 1 & Fig. 22.)
- identify a requestor’s request for an appointment with a provider (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0042] ¶ [0055] & ¶ [0059]. Karnati teaches that a consumer 30 may be able to request and access a medical record stored anywhere within the system 10 using the consumer device 32. The consumer 30 may also control whether another entity may access a medical record. For example, a request from a service provider 20 to view a medical record may require approval from the consumer 30 via the consumer device 32. Accordingly, a consumer 30 may, for example, release a medical record to a new service provider before a scheduled appointment. When a consumer 30 searches for available appointments, for example, the consumer 30 may view the available appointments and the price (with the discount or rewards included) for the services requested. The system 10 may present a plurality of available appointments based on the search requested by the consumer 30. See also Karnati at ¶ [0065] and ¶ [0081]: “A booking request notification may include the time and date of the requested appointment, service to be provided, price of the appointment, and patient or consumer information, for example.”)
- reference stored incentive data applicable to the requestor’s request, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling the appointment the requestor (see at least Karnati: Figs. 8-9 & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the system 10 may offer a discount, rewards, or credits instead of or in addition to a discount offered by a provider 20. For example, the system 10 may offer a discount based on repeated use of the system or repeated appointments with a provider 20.” Also, the system 10 may “award credits and/or another form of rewards points to consumers 30 and providers 20 who use the system 10 frequently (e.g., book appointments, provide services, rate providers, or share experiences). The credits may be redeemed for discounts on future services, prizes, and/or other rewards. The system 10 may also establish goals for the consumer 30 or provider 20 to accomplish (e.g., booking a number of appointments, booking a same day appointment).”).
- reference stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0046-0047] & ¶ [0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the provider computer system 22 via a web application, to identify presently available appointments. For example, existing appointments may be blocked out in the calendar and display the name of a consumer 30 scheduled for the appointment time and the type of procedure to be performed. Available appointments may appear as blank spaces on the calendar.” The system 10 may also integrate with a provider's calendar (e.g., a calendar used in a provider practice management system) to identify the available appointments and/or service blocks. The changes the provider 20 makes to the calendar may automatically and instantly populate in the marketplace as available and/or unavailable appointments. A consumer 30 may use a mobile application on the consumer device 32 to view available appointments for various providers 20 and selectively schedule an appointment.  See also Karnati at ¶ [0052]: If a provider 20 has a last-minute cancelation in a low demand time period, the system 10 may apply the highest discount the provider 20 is willing to give to the service and notify the consumers 30 of the available appointment and the price for the service. However, if the provider 20 has an open time slot during a high demand time, the system 10 may apply a lower discount to the service. The system 10 may automatically or selectively apply the various rules to the available appointments for the provider 20 and calculate the discounts or rewards for the appointments available that day. As such, when a consumer 30 searches for available appointments, for example, the consumer 30 may view the available appointments and the price (with the discount or rewards included) for the services requested.)
Moreover, Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Fox in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- if the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then assign the available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis with the criteria (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0040-0041]. Fox teaches that the method 300 may then determine if the selected time slot is open (block 308) using the scheduler 130 and/or the identifier 214. If the method 300 determines that the time slot is open, control advances to block 310 and the method 300 then schedules an appointment for the patient in the selected time slot (block 310) using the scheduler 130 and/or the processor 222.  See also Fox at ¶ [0022]: The plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. See also Fox at ¶ [0054]: Fox notes that the patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example. The method 400 may then determine whether or not the patient would like to schedule another appointment (block 430); otherwise, the example method 400 is ended. See also Fox at ¶ [0030-0031].)
- display, on a display device of a computing system (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2 & ¶ [0028]. Fox teaches a display module 210 shown in Fig. 2.), an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the requestor (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0031]. Fox teaches that the scheduler 204 may then convey the plurality of sorted appointments to the access device 202 where the plurality of sorted appointments can be displayed using the display module 210. After reviewing the plurality of sorted appointments, the user may then select one of the plurality of appointments using the selector 208. The access device 202 may then convey the selected appointment (e.g., an identifier associated with the selected appointment) to the scheduler 204 where the selected appointment may be stored in the data store 220.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: if the provider has an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then assign the available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria and display on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the requestor, and in view of Fox, in order for the scheduler of Fox to determine that the selected appointment is currently scheduled by another patient, the scheduler may automatically schedule the patient into the other patient's appointment if the other patient has indicated a willingness to reschedule their appointment for a predefined compensation. The scheduler may then contact the other patient using the access device to determine if the other patient is willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular compensation. The other patient may be contacted using e-mail, text messaging, automated messaging or any other known communication methods (see at least Fox: ¶ [0023-0024]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Independent Claim 6, Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following:
- a memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.) operatively comprising a non-transitory data processor-readable medium (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati notes that the removable storage unit 518 may include a computer readable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data.)
- a data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.) operatively connected to the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.)
- user interface (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati teaches that the system 10 may include an interface for a provider 20 on a provider computer system 22 (e.g., a service provider module), an interface for a consumer 30 on a consumer device 32 such as a mobile phone, tablet, or computer (e.g., a consumer module), and a network 40. The consumer device 32 may be capable of executing an application specifically for providing an interface to the network-based platform. For example, the consumer device 32 may be a wireless device (e.g. smart phone or tablet) running an installed application.) management instructions embodied in data processor-executable code stored in the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.), said user interface (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0102-0104].) management instructions being executable by the data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.) to provide a user interface management engine configured to (see at least Karnati: Fig. 1 & Fig. 22.)
- reference stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling of appointments (see at least Karnati: Figs. 8-9 & ¶ [0050-0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the system 10 may offer a discount, rewards, or credits instead of or in addition to a discount offered by a provider 20. For example, the system 10 may offer a discount based on repeated use of the system or repeated appointments with a provider 20.” Also, the system 10 may “award credits and/or another form of rewards points to consumers 30 and providers 20 who use the system 10 frequently (e.g., book appointments, provide services, rate providers, or share experiences). The credits may be redeemed for discounts on future services, prizes, and/or other rewards. The system 10 may also establish goals for the consumer 30 or provider 20 to accomplish (e.g., booking a number of appointments, booking a same day appointment).”).
- reference stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0046-0047] & ¶ [0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the provider computer system 22 via a web application, to identify presently available appointments. For example, existing appointments may be blocked out in the calendar and display the name of a consumer 30 scheduled for the appointment time and the type of procedure to be performed. Available appointments may appear as blank spaces on the calendar.” The system 10 may also integrate with a provider's calendar (e.g., a calendar used in a provider practice management system) to identify the available appointments and/or service blocks. The changes the provider 20 makes to the calendar may automatically and instantly populate in the marketplace as available and/or unavailable appointments. A consumer 30 may use a mobile application on the consumer device 32 to view available appointments for various providers 20 and selectively schedule an appointment.  See also Karnati at ¶ [0052]: If a provider 20 has a last-minute cancelation in a low demand time period, the system 10 may apply the highest discount the provider 20 is willing to give to the service and notify the consumers 30 of the available appointment and the price for the service. However, if the provider 20 has an open time slot during a high demand time, the system 10 may apply a lower discount to the service. The system 10 may automatically or selectively apply the various rules to the available appointments for the provider 20 and calculate the discounts or rewards for the appointments available that day. As such, when a consumer 30 searches for available appointments, for example, the consumer 30 may view the available appointments and the price (with the discount or rewards included) for the services requested.)
Moreover, Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Fox in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0040-0041]. Fox teaches that the method 300 may then determine if the selected time slot is open (block 308) using the scheduler 130 and/or the identifier 214. If the method 300 determines that the time slot is open, control advances to block 310 and the method 300 then schedules an appointment for the patient in the selected time slot (block 310) using the scheduler 130 and/or the processor 222.  See also Fox at ¶ [0022]: The plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. See also Fox at ¶ [0054]: Fox notes that the patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example. The method 400 may then determine whether or not the patient would like to schedule another appointment (block 430); otherwise, the example method 400 is ended. See also Fox at ¶ [0030-0031].), then:
- assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria (see at least Fox: ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0030-0031] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. The sorter 212 may sort the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, the user's priority level, the priority level of users having scheduled appointments, the willingness of users having scheduled appointments to reschedule their appointments for compensation and/or the amount of compensation that users having scheduled appointments are requesting to reschedule their appointments. For example, if the sorter 212 sorts the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, open appointments may be ranked higher than appointment that are scheduled by other users.)
- display, on a display device of a computing system (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2 & ¶ [0028]. Fox teaches a display module 210 shown in Fig. 2.), an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0031]. Fox teaches that the scheduler 204 may then convey the plurality of sorted appointments to the access device 202 where the plurality of sorted appointments can be displayed using the display module 210. After reviewing the plurality of sorted appointments, the user may then select one of the plurality of appointments using the selector 208. The access device 202 may then convey the selected appointment (e.g., an identifier associated with the selected appointment) to the scheduler 204 where the selected appointment may be stored in the data store 220.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then: assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria; and display, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient, and in view of Fox, in order for the scheduler of Fox to determine that the selected appointment is currently scheduled by another patient, the scheduler may automatically schedule the patient into the other patient's appointment if the other patient has indicated a willingness to reschedule their appointment for a predefined compensation. The scheduler may then contact the other patient using the access device to determine if the other patient is willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular compensation. The other patient may be contacted using e-mail, text messaging, automated messaging or any other known communication methods (see at least Fox: ¶ [0023-0024]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Independent Claim 18, Karnati method for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following:
- the computerized device comprising a memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22. See also Karnati at ¶ [0036-0038].) operatively comprising a non-transitory data processor-readable medium (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati notes that the removable storage unit 518 may include a computer readable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data.)
- a data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.) operative connected to the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.)
- the display and the user input component (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0037]. Karnati teaches the display interface 502 with display unit 530.  Various data may be, for example, input and/or accessed by the provider 20, consumer 30, administrator 50, third party payer 60, payment system 80, or other users via terminals, such as personal computers (PCs), minicomputers, mainframe computers.)
- user interface management instructions (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati teaches that the system 10 may include an interface for a provider 20 on a provider computer system 22 (e.g., a service provider module), an interface for a consumer 30 on a consumer device 32 such as a mobile phone, tablet, or computer (e.g., a consumer module), and a network 40. The consumer device 32 may be capable of executing an application specifically for providing an interface to the network-based platform. For example, the consumer device 32 may be a wireless device (e.g. smart phone or tablet) running an installed application.) embodied in data processor-executable code stored in the memory (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0102-0104] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes main memory 508 and secondary memory 510 shown in Fig. 22.) and executable by the data processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.), the method comprising:
- referencing stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling an appointments (see at least Karnati: Figs. 8-9 & ¶ [0050-0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the system 10 may offer a discount, rewards, or credits instead of or in addition to a discount offered by a provider 20. For example, the system 10 may offer a discount based on repeated use of the system or repeated appointments with a provider 20.” Also, the system 10 may “award credits and/or another form of rewards points to consumers 30 and providers 20 who use the system 10 frequently (e.g., book appointments, provide services, rate providers, or share experiences). The credits may be redeemed for discounts on future services, prizes, and/or other rewards. The system 10 may also establish goals for the consumer 30 or provider 20 to accomplish (e.g., booking a number of appointments, booking a same day appointment).”).
- referencing stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0046-0047] & ¶ [0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the provider computer system 22 via a web application, to identify presently available appointments. For example, existing appointments may be blocked out in the calendar and display the name of a consumer 30 scheduled for the appointment time and the type of procedure to be performed. Available appointments may appear as blank spaces on the calendar.” The system 10 may also integrate with a provider's calendar (e.g., a calendar used in a provider practice management system) to identify the available appointments and/or service blocks. The changes the provider 20 makes to the calendar may automatically and instantly populate in the marketplace as available and/or unavailable appointments. A consumer 30 may use a mobile application on the consumer device 32 to view available appointments for various providers 20 and selectively schedule an appointment.  See also Karnati at ¶ [0052]: If a provider 20 has a last-minute cancelation in a low demand time period, the system 10 may apply the highest discount the provider 20 is willing to give to the service and notify the consumers 30 of the available appointment and the price for the service. However, if the provider 20 has an open time slot during a high demand time, the system 10 may apply a lower discount to the service. The system 10 may automatically or selectively apply the various rules to the available appointments for the provider 20 and calculate the discounts or rewards for the appointments available that day. As such, when a consumer 30 searches for available appointments, for example, the consumer 30 may view the available appointments and the price (with the discount or rewards included) for the services requested.)
Moreover, Karnati method for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Fox in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0040-0041]. Fox teaches that the method 300 may then determine if the selected time slot is open (block 308) using the scheduler 130 and/or the identifier 214. If the method 300 determines that the time slot is open, control advances to block 310 and the method 300 then schedules an appointment for the patient in the selected time slot (block 310) using the scheduler 130 and/or the processor 222.  See also Fox at ¶ [0022]: The plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. See also Fox at ¶ [0054]: Fox notes that the patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example. The method 400 may then determine whether or not the patient would like to schedule another appointment (block 430); otherwise, the example method 400 is ended. See also Fox at ¶ [0030-0031].), then:
- assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria (see at least Fox: ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0030-0031] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. The sorter 212 may sort the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, the user's priority level, the priority level of users having scheduled appointments, the willingness of users having scheduled appointments to reschedule their appointments for compensation and/or the amount of compensation that users having scheduled appointments are requesting to reschedule their appointments. For example, if the sorter 212 sorts the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, open appointments may be ranked higher than appointment that are scheduled by other users.)
- display, on a display device of a computing system (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2 & ¶ [0028]. Fox teaches a display module 210 shown in Fig. 2.), an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0031]. Fox teaches that the scheduler 204 may then convey the plurality of sorted appointments to the access device 202 where the plurality of sorted appointments can be displayed using the display module 210. After reviewing the plurality of sorted appointments, the user may then select one of the plurality of appointments using the selector 208. The access device 202 may then convey the selected appointment (e.g., an identifier associated with the selected appointment) to the scheduler 204 where the selected appointment may be stored in the data store 220.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati method for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then: assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria; and display, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient, and in view of Fox, in order for the scheduler of Fox to determine that the selected appointment is currently scheduled by another patient, the scheduler may automatically schedule the patient into the other patient's appointment if the other patient has indicated a willingness to reschedule their appointment for a predefined compensation. The scheduler may then contact the other patient using the access device to determine if the other patient is willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular compensation. The other patient may be contacted using e-mail, text messaging, automated messaging or any other known communication methods (see at least Fox: ¶ [0023-0024]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Independent Claim 20, Karnati computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following:
- the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least Karnati: Fig. 22 & ¶ [0102-0104]. Karnati notes that the removable storage unit 518 may include a computer readable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data.) storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0037] & ¶ [0101] & Fig. 22. Karnati notes that the terminals may be coupled to a computer server 42, such as a PC, minicomputer, mainframe computer, microcomputer, or other device having a processor. See also Karnati at Fig. 22 showing processor 504.), cause a computerized asymmetry-based scheduling system (see at least Karnati: Fig. 1 & Fig. 22.) to perform a method comprising:
- referencing stored incentive data applicable to scheduling of appointments with patients, the incentive data defining criteria for earning an incentive for scheduling an appointments (see at least Karnati: Figs. 8-9 & ¶ [0050-0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the system 10 may offer a discount, rewards, or credits instead of or in addition to a discount offered by a provider 20. For example, the system 10 may offer a discount based on repeated use of the system or repeated appointments with a provider 20.” Also, the system 10 may “award credits and/or another form of rewards points to consumers 30 and providers 20 who use the system 10 frequently (e.g., book appointments, provide services, rate providers, or share experiences). The credits may be redeemed for discounts on future services, prizes, and/or other rewards. The system 10 may also establish goals for the consumer 30 or provider 20 to accomplish (e.g., booking a number of appointments, booking a same day appointment).”).
- referencing stored appointment availability data and determine whether the provider has an available appointment, for a patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0046-0047] & ¶ [0052] & ¶ [0057-0059]. Karnati teaches that “the provider computer system 22 via a web application, to identify presently available appointments. For example, existing appointments may be blocked out in the calendar and display the name of a consumer 30 scheduled for the appointment time and the type of procedure to be performed. Available appointments may appear as blank spaces on the calendar.” The system 10 may also integrate with a provider's calendar (e.g., a calendar used in a provider practice management system) to identify the available appointments and/or service blocks. The changes the provider 20 makes to the calendar may automatically and instantly populate in the marketplace as available and/or unavailable appointments. A consumer 30 may use a mobile application on the consumer device 32 to view available appointments for various providers 20 and selectively schedule an appointment.  See also Karnati at ¶ [0052]: If a provider 20 has a last-minute cancelation in a low demand time period, the system 10 may apply the highest discount the provider 20 is willing to give to the service and notify the consumers 30 of the available appointment and the price for the service. However, if the provider 20 has an open time slot during a high demand time, the system 10 may apply a lower discount to the service. The system 10 may automatically or selectively apply the various rules to the available appointments for the provider 20 and calculate the discounts or rewards for the appointments available that day. As such, when a consumer 30 searches for available appointments, for example, the consumer 30 may view the available appointments and the price (with the discount or rewards included) for the services requested.)
Moreover, Karnati computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Fox in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0040-0041]. Fox teaches that the method 300 may then determine if the selected time slot is open (block 308) using the scheduler 130 and/or the identifier 214. If the method 300 determines that the time slot is open, control advances to block 310 and the method 300 then schedules an appointment for the patient in the selected time slot (block 310) using the scheduler 130 and/or the processor 222.  See also Fox at ¶ [0022]: The plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. See also Fox at ¶ [0054]: Fox notes that the patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example. The method 400 may then determine whether or not the patient would like to schedule another appointment (block 430); otherwise, the example method 400 is ended. See also Fox at ¶ [0030-0031].), then:
- assigning the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria (see at least Fox: ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0030-0031] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the plurality of appointments may be sorted, filtered and/or grouped based on the patient's availability, the patient's priority level, the priority level of a patient having a scheduled appointment and/or the amount of compensation requested by a patient having a scheduled appointment. The sorter 212 may sort the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, the user's priority level, the priority level of users having scheduled appointments, the willingness of users having scheduled appointments to reschedule their appointments for compensation and/or the amount of compensation that users having scheduled appointments are requesting to reschedule their appointments. For example, if the sorter 212 sorts the plurality of appointments based on the user's availability, open appointments may be ranked higher than appointment that are scheduled by other users.)
- displaying, on a display device of a computing system (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2 & ¶ [0028]. Fox teaches a display module 210 shown in Fig. 2.), an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0031]. Fox teaches that the scheduler 204 may then convey the plurality of sorted appointments to the access device 202 where the plurality of sorted appointments can be displayed using the display module 210. After reviewing the plurality of sorted appointments, the user may then select one of the plurality of appointments using the selector 208. The access device 202 may then convey the selected appointment (e.g., an identifier associated with the selected appointment) to the scheduler 204 where the selected appointment may be stored in the data store 220.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then: assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria; and display, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient, and in view of Fox, in order for the scheduler of Fox to determine that the selected appointment is currently scheduled by another patient, the scheduler may automatically schedule the patient into the other patient's appointment if the other patient has indicated a willingness to reschedule their appointment for a predefined compensation. The scheduler may then contact the other patient using the access device to determine if the other patient is willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular compensation. The other patient may be contacted using e-mail, text messaging, automated messaging or any other known communication methods (see at least Fox: ¶ [0023-0024]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 7, Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 6 above, and Fox further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions (see at least Fox: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0018-0020]. Fox teaches that the access devices 112 are capable of implementing a user interface 124 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or patient to interact with the medical information system 100.) further comprises instructions executable by the data processor (see at least Fox: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0061-0062].)  to configure the user interface management engine to (see at least Fox:
Figs. 1-2.);
- if the provider does not have an available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: ¶ [0041-0045] & ¶ [0054] & Figs. 3-4. Fox teaches that the patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount (e.g., a price point that must be met for the patient to be willing to reschedule) or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s).  The patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s). The method 300 may then determine if the selected time slot is open (block 308) using the scheduler 130 and/or the identifier 214. If the method 300 determines that the time slot is open, control advances to block 310 and the method 300 then schedules an appointment for the patient in the selected time slot (block 310) using the scheduler 130 and/or the processor 222.), then:
- reference stored appointment availability data applicable to the requestor’s request (see at least Fox: ¶ [0021] & ¶ [0024-0026] & Figs. 3-4. Fox teaches that the patient may be scheduled in the appointment from the other patient willing to reschedule their appointment for compensation, in the appointment from the other patient willing to reschedule their appointment for the least amount of compensation and/or in the appointment from the other patient willing to reschedule their appointment that responds to the request first. Fox also teaches that scheduling appointments such as, appointments that are available (e.g., available time slots), appointments that are scheduled (e.g., scheduled time slots), the compensation (e.g., an amount or type) requested to reschedule an appointment and/or other time slots that patients having appointments are available to reschedule.), the appointment availability data defining parameters for adding additional appointment capacity (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0018]. Fox notes that in response to a patient entering their availability and/or priority level (e.g., critical level), the user interface 124 may display a plurality of time slots from which the user may choose to schedule their appointment. In such examples, the access device 112 may include one or more options relating to scheduling an appointment. See also Fox at Figs. 3-4.);
- determine whether the incentive data applicable to the requestor’s request is compatible with the parameters for adding additional appointment capacity (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0045-0046]. Fox notes that once the patient (e.g., the first patient) is scheduled in the selected time slot (block 310), control advances to block 320 where the method 300 determines whether or not the patient is willing to possibly reschedule their appointment for compensation (block 320) based on patient input. For example, the patient may be requested to reschedule their appointment if a future patient has a higher priority level than the patient and/or if a future patient is only available during a particular time period. The patient indicates that they are willing to possibly reschedule their appointment, control advances to block 322 and the patient and/or healthcare practitioner may determine and/or identify, using patient input, the compensation (e.g., an amount and/or type) to reschedule the patient's appointment (block 322).)
- if the incentive data applicable to the requestor’s request is compatible with the parameters for adding additional appointment capacity (see at least Fox: ¶ [0027-0030] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the access device 202 enables a user to input their availability and/or priority level and other associated information and to interact and/or communicate with the scheduler 204. The scheduler 204 may schedule and/or reschedule the user and/or other users based on the user's availability, priority level and other associated information.), then:
- add an additional available appointment compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: ¶ [0030-0032] & ¶ [0035] & Figs. 3-4.);
- assign the additional available appointment to the requestor on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria (see at least Fox:  ¶ [0034-0035] & Figs. 3-4. Fox teaches that once the other user is scheduled in the different appointment, the notifier 216 may notify the other user of the different appointment, the processor 222 may change the priority level of the other user and the compensator 218 may compensate the other user, for example. In some examples, the compensator 218 may compensate the other user by assigning an identifier to the other user indicating that the user is entitled to a particular compensation. If the identifier 214 identifies that another user is scheduled in the selected appointment and that the other user is unwilling to reschedule their appointment for compensation, the identifier 214 may identify if the other user has a priority level that allows for a reschedule override.)
- display, on the display device of the computing system (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2 & ¶ [0031]. Fox notes that the scheduler 204 may then convey the plurality of sorted appointments to the access device 202 where the plurality of sorted appointments can be displayed using the display module 210.), the indication that the additional available appointment has been assigned to the requestor (see at least Fox: ¶ [0034] & ¶ [0043] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the compensator 218 may compensate the other user by assigning an identifier to the other user indicating that the user is entitled to a particular compensation. For example, if the user is a patient in a healthcare facility, the identifier associated with the user may indicate that the user is entitled to not pay a copayment for services rendered at their next appointment. The method 300 may reschedule the other patient's appointment into another one of the plurality of time slots by identifying other time slots that the other patient has indicated an availability to attend and/or by contacting the other patient to determine their availability.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings shown for adding additional appointment capacity, assigning the additional available appointment capacity on a prioritized basis and displaying that the indication that the additional available appointment has been assigned to the requestor, and in further view of Fox, in order for the scheduler of Fox to determine that the selected appointment is currently scheduled by another patient, the scheduler may automatically schedule the patient into the other patient's appointment if the other patient has indicated a willingness to reschedule their appointment for a predefined compensation. The scheduler may then contact the other patient using the access device to determine if the other patient is willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular compensation. The other patient may be contacted using e-mail, text messaging, automated messaging or any other known communication methods (see at least Fox: ¶ [0023-0024]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claims 3 and 8, Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 6 above, and Fox further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions (see at least Fox: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0018-0020]. Fox teaches that the access devices 112 are capable of implementing a user interface 124 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or patient to interact with the medical information system 100.) further comprises instructions executable by the data processor (see at least Fox: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0061-0062].)  to configure the user interface management engine to (see at least Fox:
Figs. 1-2.):
- display, on at least one display device (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2.), at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive and criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Fox: ¶ [0018] & ¶ [0033-0036] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that the notifier 216 may then notify the other user of the different appointment, the processor 222 may change the priority level of the other user and/or the compensator 218 may compensate the other user, for example. If the other user has not identified any other appointments that the other user is available to attend, the notifier 216 may notify the other user using the access device 202 of the scheduling change and/or to determine the availability of the other user to reschedule. The scheduler 130 and/or the compensator 218 may compensate the other patient by assigning an identifier to the other patient that indicates that the other patient is entitled to a particular compensation such as not paying a copayment for services rendered at their next appointment. See also Fox at ¶ [0026-0027].)
- receive input defining at least one appointment scheduling incentive and associated criteria for earning the at least one appointment incentive (see at least Fox: ¶ [0026-0027] & Figs. 3-4. Fox notes that once the patient has scheduled an appointment, the scheduler 130, using patient input entered into the access device 112, may determine if the patient is willing to reschedule their scheduled appointment for compensation. If the patient is willing to reschedule their appointment, the scheduler 130, using patient input entered into the access device 112, may determine an amount of compensation requested to reschedule their appointment and/or other time slots that the patient is available to reschedule their appointment.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: display, on at least one display device, at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive and criteria for earning the incentive & receive input defining at least one appointment scheduling incentive and associated criteria for earning the at least one appointment incentive, and in further view of Fox, wherein by increasing the priority level of the other patient, the examples described herein substantially ensure that a patient having a relatively low priority level is not continuously rescheduled by patients having higher priority level appointments. The compensation may be a monetary compensation such as a waiver of a copayment for services rendered or a monetary amount requested by the patient rescheduling their appointment (see at least Fox: ¶ [0025]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claims 4 and 9, Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 above, and Fox further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions (see at least Fox: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0018-0020]. Fox teaches that the access devices 112 are capable of implementing a user interface 124 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or patient to interact with the medical information system 100.) further comprises instructions executable by the data processor (see at least Fox: Fig. 2 & ¶ [0061-0062].)  to configure the user interface management engine to (see at least Fox:
Figs. 1-2.):
- display, on at least one display device (see at least Fox: Figs. 1-2.), at least one option selectable to define an appointment scheduling incentive having a monetary value (see at least Fox: Figs. 3-4 & ¶ [0025] & ¶ [0045] & ¶ [0054]. Fox teaches that in response to a patient entering their availability and/or priority level (e.g., critical level), the user interface 124 may display a plurality of time slots from which the user may choose to schedule their appointment. The patient may input into the access device and/or the inputter that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount (e.g., a price point that must be met for the patient to be willing to reschedule) or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s). See also Fox at ¶ [0045]: The patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount (e.g., a price point that must be met for the patient to be willing to reschedule) or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example. See also Fox at ¶ [0054]: The patient may input into the access device 112 and/or the inputter 206 that they would be willing to reschedule their appointment for a particular monetary amount or incentive and/or a particular priority level in a future appointment(s), for example).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings shown for adding additional appointment capacity, assigning the additional available appointment capacity on a prioritized basis and displaying that the indication that the additional available appointment has been assigned to the requestor, and in further view of Fox, wherein by increasing the priority level of the other patient, the examples described herein substantially ensure that a patient having a relatively low priority level is not continuously rescheduled by patients having higher priority level appointments. The compensation may be a monetary compensation such as a waiver of a copayment for services rendered or a monetary amount requested by the patient rescheduling their appointment (see at least Fox: ¶ [0025]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fox, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 10, Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 6 above, and Karnati further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions executable to configure the user interface management engine (see at least Karnati: Fig. 1 & Fig. 22.) to identify a requestor’s request for an appointment with a provider (see at least Karnati: Figs. 16-17 & ¶ [0046-0048]. Karnati teaches that the system 10 may also integrate with a provider's calendar (e.g., a calendar used in a provider practice management system) to identify the available appointments and/or service blocks. The service block may identify the type of service (e.g., surgery) and the available time range for the service. The system 10 may allow only appointments for the identified type of service to be scheduled during the service block.) comprise instructions to receive appointment request data transmitted via a communications network (see at least Karnati: ¶ [0060] & ¶ [0082-0083] & ¶ [0090]. Karnati teaches that the system 10 may also check the availability of the appointment against other received booking requests and manually entered appointments (e.g., appointments scheduled by telephone and entered by the provider 20). The system 10 may display conflicting appointment requests so that a provider 20 may select which request to accept (for example, if separate consumers concurrently made appointments through the system 10 for the same date and time, or if an appointment had been scheduled in-person and not yet entered into the system 10 by the provider). This reminder may allow the consumer 30 to reconfirm the scheduled appointment. The consumer 30 may receive a notification and/or an alert, such as an e-mail message, text message, a telephone call, a message on a feed, or a message on a calendar with the appointment reminder. See also Karnati at ¶ [0090]: Karnati notes that a provider 20 may manually check-in a patient on the provider computer system 22 when the patient arrives for their appointment. See also Karnati at Figs. 16-17.)

12. 		Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) to Fox, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0301977 A1) to Belcher.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Karnati / Fox method / computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Belcher in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
	- wherein said user interface management instructions (see at least Belcher: ¶ [0096] & Figs. 12-13. Belcher teaches that the system 1200 includes a value-based decision support system 1210, a data source 1220, an external system 1230, a network 1240, a first access device 1250 with a first user interface 1252, and a second access device 1255 with a second user interface 1257.) comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Belcher: ¶ [0130] & Figs. 12-13. Belcher teaches a system for implementing the overall system or portions of example embodiments of the invention might include a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer.), a graphical user interface window displaying at least one patient that is ready to be assigned an appointment in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient (see at least Belcher: ¶ [0064-0065] & ¶ [0075-0076] & Fig. 6. Belcher notes in Fig. 6, available and/or satisfactory providers of services 610 are listed in order of preference 625 as derived from the screening criteria previously described. Dynamic links to order a procedure/service and book an appointment and links to explore the particulars of a procedure's operation or apparatus or other attribute are provided. Upon selection, a desired service provider 615 provides enhanced selection information, if any, such as alternative time slots and pricing incentives 630 or any other value enhancement. See Belcher at ¶ [0076] and Fig. 6: “Enabling a discount or other value enhancer to be offered that incentivizes the patient to schedule advantageously for the service provider. A $25 dollar patient cost discount 630 is offered for booking on Thursday at 11 versus Wednesday at 8. Any value enhancing incentive is available to be offered as part of the invention, subject to rules that may be invoked.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: a graphical user interface window displaying at least one patient that is ready to be assigned an appointment in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient, and in further view of Belcher, wherein the system of Warner is also operable to analyze and create a report (e.g., graphic display on a monitor, printout, etc.) of the tracked properties described above to track a performance/efficiency of or trends in the workflow relative to changes in admissions or patient populations, different patient groupings, changes in availability of resources, changes in procedure, etc (see at least Warner: ¶ [0055]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Belcher, the results of the combination were predictable.

13. 		Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) to Fox, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2014/0249878 A1) to Kaufman.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Karnati / Fox method / computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Kaufman in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Kaufman: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0103]. Kaufman teaches that a first supplier could enter information about the consumer, e.g., frequently cancels appts, which is then reviewed by a second supplier in order to make a decision to accept or deny an appt from this consumer. This information can be entered into the systems of the present invention via a user interface on the consumer device and supplier device.), a graphical user interface window displaying an incentive for at least one appointment and a user-selectable button selectable to cause automated assignment of at least one appointment to at least on patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive applicable to each appointment (see at least Kaufman: [0072-0073] & Fig. 19. Kaufman teaches that this fee can be shared amongst all of the actors, e.g., supplier, service provider implementing the systems, processes and/or services, and other consumer which accepted the swapped appointments, and even the system, thus providing a financial incentive. Swapping or changing of appointments can also be provided without a fee. Kaufman at ¶ [0173]: Notifications can be a selectable icon/button that allows the scheduling application to display alerts regarding upcoming appointments, cancellations, auctions, and/or any other event that can affect an appointment. In embodiments, credits 1512 can be a selectable icon/button that displays a screen that shows the number of credits currently stored by the application. Kaufman at ¶ [0191] & Fig. 28. Kaufman teaches at FIG. 28 shows an example display for confirming an appointment. As shown in FIG. 28, the display includes confirmation message 2802, credits used 2804, appointment time 2806, selected suppliers 2808, and confirm 2810.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying an incentive for at least one appointment and a user-selectable button selectable to cause automated assignment of at least one appointment to at least on patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive applicable to each appointment, and in further view of Kaufman, wherein scheduling engine may implement a reverse auction system that results in different suppliers bidding for a particular appointment time. This results in a lower price to the consumer, while maintaining efficient and most productive scheduling practices (see at least Kaufman: ¶ [0073]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Kaufman, the results of the combination were predictable.

14. 		Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) to Fox, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2009/0182575 A1) to Warner.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Karnati / Fox method / computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Warner in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Warner: ¶ [0049]. Warner teaches that the clinical device 324 can also include a processor 350 that executes functions (represented as computer readable program instructions) of the clinical device 324 or agent 341.), a graphical user interface window displaying an first request for a first appointment for a first patient without an applicable incentive and a second request for a second appointment for a second patient with an applicable incentive, in conjunction with an identification of the applicable incentive for scheduling the second appointment for the second patient, along with a user-selectable button selectable to initiate assignment of an appointment to the second patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive (see at least Warner: Figs. 6-8 & ¶ [0072-0073] & ¶ [0082]. Warner teaches that the agents 122, 124, 126, 127 can be configured to collaborate in calculating or assigning a priority status 129 of each patient 105 to one or more available the resource 110, 112, 114 employed in the workflow relative to other patients 105. Vice versa or in addition, the agents 122, 124, 126, 127 can be configured to collaborate in calculating priority statuses 130, 132, 134 of each resource 110, 112, 114 to each patient 105. Of course, the number of priority statuses 129, 130, 132, 134 can vary with the number of resources 110, 112, 114 and patients 105.  Warner notes that a bid is a value indicative of a priority status of each patient 105 relative to one another directed to a slot in the schedule of operation or utilization of one or more of the resources 110, 112, 114. Vice versa, the assessment index or bid can include a value representative of a value of priority status of allocation of each resource 110, 112, 114 to each patient 105 relative to the other resources 110, 112, 114. Warner also shown at ¶ [0072]: The greater severity of the tracked state of shock of the patient 665, the patient agent 670 in combination with the patient agent 127 communicates to the bidding engine 140 that the second patient 665 has a higher priority status relative to the first patient 105. In response, step 675 includes the bidding engine 140 re-calculating or updating or altering the bid values of the first patient 105 relative to the second patient 665 such that the broker 150 schedules the second patient 665 to be seen by the physician 110 before the first patient 650. The type of tracked property (e.g., loss of consciousness, etc.) that would trigger the second agent 665 to increase the priority status of the second patient 665 relative the priority status of the first patient 105 can vary.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying an first request for a first appointment for a first patient without an applicable incentive and a second request for a second appointment for a second patient with an applicable incentive, in conjunction with an identification of the applicable incentive for scheduling the second appointment for the second patient, along with a user-selectable button selectable to initiate assignment of an appointment to the second patient on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning an incentive, and in further view of Warner, wherein the system of Warner is also operable to analyze and create a report (e.g., graphic display on a monitor, printout, etc.) of the tracked properties described above to track a performance/efficiency of or trends in the workflow relative to changes in admissions or patient populations, different patient groupings, changes in availability of resources, changes in procedure, etc (see at least Warner: ¶ [0055]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Warner, the results of the combination were predictable.

15. 		Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) to Fox, and in further view of US Patent # (US 10,262,384 B1) to Albro.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation as applied to Independent Claim 6 does not explicitly disclose, but Albro in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions (see at least Albro: Fig. 3C & Fig 10.) executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Albro: Figs. 10-11.), a graphical user interface window displaying a list comprising a plurality of requests for appointments for a plurality of patients (see at least Albro: Fig. 3C & Figs. 6A-6B & Col. 8, Lns. 39-45: A user may be seeking immediate medical assistance at 3 am but may still desire to know which has the best quality service ranking and the lowest copay option. The user may enter such information into the application as first and second priority criteria before receiving a list of options ranked in the order of the criteria entered.), each of said plurality of requests being displayed in conjunction with a respective applicable for scheduling an appointment on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning the incentive (see at least Albro: Col. 8, Lns. 15-45 & Fig. 3C & Fig. 6B. Albro teaches at Col. 16, Lns. 47-55 that a patient or customer could gain “points” in return for accepting changes. The points can be saved up by the customer and can be used by customers to obtain a higher priority or to move appointment requests to the front of the queue for a future medical appointment. For example, if a patient is offered and agrees to a threshold number of (i.e., ‘3’) appointment changes the patient account may gain 3 points which can then be used to obtain first priority appointment preferences for future medical appointment requests. Albro at Col. 8, Lns. 39-45: A user may be seeking immediate medical assistance at 3 am but may still desire to know which has the best quality service ranking and the lowest copay option. The user may enter such information into the application as first and second priority criteria before receiving a list of options ranked in the order of the criteria entered.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying a list comprising a plurality of requests for appointments for a plurality of patients, each of said plurality of requests being displayed in conjunction with a respective applicable for scheduling an appointment on a prioritized basis compatible with applicable criteria for earning the incentive, and in further view of Albro, wherein the user account may be credited with accepting the schedule change and the user account may be updated to reflect the credit received for subsequent medical visits. The credit received includes a prioritized time schedule and/or a financial reward. The user account may be identified as being credited with the incentive, and one or more user preferences can also be retrieved and associated with the scheduling (see at least Albro: Col. 16, Lns. 15-27).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Albro, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Karnati / Fox / Albro system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Claims 6 and 15 above, and Albro further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions (see at least Albro: Fig. 3C & Fig 10.) executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Albro: Figs. 10-11.), a graphical user interface window displaying the list, wherein the plurality of requests for appointments are sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with a preference (see at least Albro: Fig. 3C & Fig. 6B. Albro teaches at Col. 16, Lns. 47-55 that a patient or customer could gain “points” in return for accepting changes. The points can be saved up by the customer and can be used by customers to obtain a higher priority or to move appointment requests to the front of the queue for a future medical appointment. For example, if a patient is offered and agrees to a threshold number of (i.e., ‘3’) appointment changes the patient account may gain 3 points which can then be used to obtain first priority appointment preferences for future medical appointment requests. Albro at Col. 8, Lns. 39-45: A user may be seeking immediate medical assistance at 3 am but may still desire to know which has the best quality service ranking and the lowest copay option. The user may enter such information into the application as first and second priority criteria before receiving a list of options ranked in the order of the criteria entered. Albro at Col. 15, Lns. 40-45: As options for the patient become available, the patient may be updated with options 666 for scheduling, such as option #1—no incentive, option #2—incentive option $10.00 credit, option #3—no incentive.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox / Albro system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying the list, wherein the plurality of requests for appointments are sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with a preference, and in further view of Albro, wherein the user account may be credited with accepting the schedule change and the user account may be updated to reflect the credit received for subsequent medical visits. The credit received includes a prioritized time schedule and/or a financial reward. The user account may be identified as being credited with the incentive, and one or more user preferences can also be retrieved and associated with the scheduling (see at least Albro: Col. 16, Lns. 15-27).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Albro, the results of the combination were predictable.

Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Karnati / Fox / Albro system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the limitations of Claims 6 and 15-16 above, and Albro further teaches the system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation comprising:
- wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions (see at least Albro: Fig. 3C & Fig 10.) executable to display, on a computing device (see at least Albro: Figs. 10-11.), a graphical user interface window displaying the list, sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with the preference, wherein the preference is one of a highest monetary value, a shortest time to payment, and a certain data sharing permission (see at least Albro: Col. 8, Lns. 15-26 & Fig. 3C & Fig. 6B.  Albro teaches that the user's preferences are shown at 378 as being ordered by priority and which may have corresponding weights to ensure the results are processed according to the user's preferences.” Albro at Col. 8, Lns. 39-45: A user may be seeking immediate medical assistance at 3 am but may still desire to know which has the best quality service ranking and the lowest copay option. The user may enter such information into the application as first and second priority criteria before receiving a list of options ranked in the order of the criteria entered. Albro at Col. 13, Lns. 45-52: Patients could be motivated to start showing-up on time by creating a “points” scheme so the more times they show up on time, the more points they gain. They can use/cash in those points to create “high priority appointments” where they could conceivably bump someone out of another appointment slot or get the appointment slot given to them in the event that both patients wanted the same day/time and booked at exactly the same time. Albro at Col. 15, Lns. 40-45: As options for the patient become available, the patient may be updated with options 666 for scheduling, such as option #1—no incentive, option #2—incentive option $10.00 credit, option #3—no incentive.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox / Albro system for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein said user interface management instructions comprise instructions executable to display, on a computing device, a graphical user interface window displaying the list, sorted in order of applicable incentives, prioritized in accordance with the preference, wherein the preference is one of a highest monetary value, a shortest time to payment, and a certain data sharing permission, and in further view of Albro, wherein the user account may be credited with accepting the schedule change and the user account may be updated to reflect the credit received for subsequent medical visits. The credit received includes a prioritized time schedule and/or a financial reward. The user account may be identified as being credited with the incentive, and one or more user preferences can also be retrieved and associated with the scheduling (see at least Albro: Col. 16, Lns. 15-27).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Albro, the results of the combination were predictable.

16. 		Claims 11, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2016/0379173 A1) to Karnati, in view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0161097 A1) to Fox, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2019/0122751 A1) to Guillama.
Regarding Dependent Claims 11, 19 and 21, Karnati / Fox method / computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation does not explicitly disclose, but Guillama in the analogous art for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation teaches the following limitations:
- displaying on a computing device (see at least Guillama: Figs. 8A-8B & ¶ [0082]. Guillama notes that multimodal systems can enable a user to provide multiple types of input to communicate with the computing device 800.), a graphical user interface window displaying at least one appointment that is available to be scheduled for a particular patient in conjunction with an identification of the incentive for scheduling the appointment for the particular patient (see at least Guillama: ¶ [0058-0061] & Figs. 3-5 & Fig. 8B. Guillama notes that FIG. 3, the process of matching receivers to time slots and providing individualized incentives can provide some patients productivity advantages when compared to other patients who cannot aid the efficiency of utilization of the technology resource.  See also Guillama at ¶ [0058-0061]: “Patient # 1 is 6 foot 4″ tall and 210 lb, 29 year old firemen, needing a non-urgent workplace certification test. His shift begins at 6pm Friday and he needs to schedule for 4 pm. He is initially quoted: 1300 less $100 Public Service Discount=$1200 (selected) for Vendor A; 1200 (matching A) for Vendor B; no bid—based on profile (too big) for Vendor C; and $1300 for Vendor D. He can select Vendor B at 4 pm.” However, this bumps Patient 1 to 5 pm. Patient 1 can no longer make his 6 PM work shift and must move to 4 PM Tuesday after his shift ends as all other alternate 4 pm slots are filled. Patient 1 is then quoted: $1300 less $100 Public Service Discount=$1200−less $100 to move appointment=1100 for Vendor A; $1200 (matching A) for Vendor B; No Bid−based on profile (too big) for Vendor C; and $1300 on original schedule for Vendor D. At the same time as Patient 1 attempting to reschedule, Patient 2 is offered an incentive to move to an open 5 pm slot. Patient 2, a VA patient can accept the 5 pm slot at the last minute and is quoted: $1100 because the last minute penalty no longer applies—less move incentive for Vendor A; $1200 (1200-100 (Medicare)+100 (last minute) @4 pm for Vendor B; $1450 @4 pm for Vendor C; and $1100 @4 pm for Vendor D.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Karnati / Fox computer program product for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation with the aforementioned teachings of: if the provider has an available appointment, for the patient, that is compatible with the criteria for earning the incentive, then: assign the available appointment to the patient on a prioritized basis compatible with the criteria; and display, on a display device of a computing system, an indication that the available appointment has been assigned to the patient, and in further view of Guillama, wherein patients can make use of the decision organizer, because the decision organizer can evaluate every possible option on the market and automatically suggest a best fit for the individual patient, based on the patient's preferences  (see at least Guillama: ¶ [0034]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for user interface management for asymmetric capacity and time unit allocation, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Guillama, the results of the combination were predictable.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM EST. 
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 on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).

/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A                                                                                                                                                                                                        

/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625