DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the response dated 17 January 2026 the following occurred: No claims were amended.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for matching a healthcare provider with a healthcare organization on a temporary basis, which is within a statutory category.
Step 1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
maintaining accounts for each of a plurality of healthcare organizations and for each of a plurality of vendors, wherein the maintaining comprises maintaining an electronic form of a master agreement between a specific healthcare organization and a specific vendor that have agreed to terms of the master agreement, such that for each healthcare organization there is only a subset of the plurality of vendors that have agreed to terms of the master agreement of that healthcare organization, the master agreement specifying terms for a specific vendor to provide a healthcare provider for purposes of fulfilling a temporary assignment of the healthcare organization;
providing independent access to the secure web-based system via individual user names and passwords for (i) one or more healthcare facility administrators of each healthcare organization, (ii) the plurality of vendors, and (iii) one or more support personnel, the independent access being granted between the one or more healthcare facility administrator, the plurality of vendors, and the one or more support personnel;
providing a first set of selection options to each of the one or more healthcare facility administrators wherein providing the first set of selection options comprises presenting to each of the one or more administrators a list of only the subset of vendors that are specific to the healthcare organization of each of the one or more administrators;
receiving, via the first set of selection options, temporary assignment information provided by the administrator of the one or more administrators and creating from the information a specific temporary assignment to be fulfilled, wherein receiving the temporary assignment information comprises receiving a selection of select vendors from the list of the subset of vendors by the administrator and associating the specific temporary assignment created by the administrator to only the select vendors;
presenting the specific temporary assignment to be fulfilled to only the select vendors that are associated to the specific temporary assignment;
determining which providers are available for each vendor to present for each healthcare organization by eliminating for a given vendor those providers that are subject to procuring cause protection in effect for all other vendors in relation to each healthcare organization, wherein the eliminating comprises:
determining a time period of procuring cause protection by the healthcare organization for a first vendor based on the maintained electronic form of the master agreement,
determining a first prior presentation of a first provider by the first vendor in a bid submitted to the healthcare organization,
detecting whether the time period has expired from the first prior presentation of the first provider by the first vendor in the bid submitted to the healthcare organization, when the time period has expired, then not eliminating by the secure web-based system the first provider for the all other vendors, and when the time period has not expired, then eliminating by the secure web-based system the first provider for the all other vendors;
providing a second set of website selection options in relation to creating a bid for the specific temporary assignment to only the select vendors of the subset of vendors, the second set of options including the select vendors a selected display of a list of only the a list of only the providers that are eligible to be included in the bid for the specific temporary assignment according to the determining of which providers are available for the vendor being presented the second set of options as those providers being displayed have not been eliminated due to the procuring cause protection that is provided to the other vendors besides the vendor of the subset that is being presented the second set of selection options;
receiving a selection of an option to create a bid for the specific temporary assignment to be fulfilled by a plurality of the select vendors and receiving bid information from the plurality of select vendors to create the bids including receiving a selection of a provider from the list;
providing each bid from the select vendors to the healthcare organization;
receiving a selection by the healthcare organization of a winning bid from the bids; and
providing notice of the winning bid to the select vendor that created the winning bid
, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a secure web-based system that provides websites, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (see Decision On Appeal dated 30 April 2024 at numbered Pgs. 7-10). For example, but for the secure web-based system that provides websites, this claim encompasses a person thinking about matching a healthcare provider with a healthcare organization on a temporary basis (see Decision On Appeal dated 18 May 2020 at Pg. 9), in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternately or additionally, as drafted, the identified abstract idea is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a secure web-based system that provides websites, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (see Decision On Appeal dated 30 April 2024 at numbered Pg. 19 finding that the Examiner ‘s reasoning was affirmed). For example, but for the secure web-based system that provides websites, this claim encompasses the human-based task of matching a healthcare provider with a healthcare organization on a temporary basis (see Decision On Appeal dated 18 May 2020 at Pg. 9). The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a secure web-based system that provides websites. The secure web-based system that provides websites is described by the Applicant as either a computer system [Pg. 4, first full paragraph; Pg. 15, first full paragraph] or a server [Pg. 15, first full paragraph] and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer preforming generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the two additional elements of (1) transmitting data over a network connection, (2) computer systems having a GUI, and (3) a drop-down menu. The additional element of (1) transmitting data over a network is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. The additional element of (2) computer systems having a GUI are also recited at a high level of generality an represents locations from which data is received and to which data is transmitted, which is also extra-solution activity. The additional element of (3) a drop-down menu is also recited at a high level of generality an represents a description of how data is received, which is also extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a secure web-based system that provides websites amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) transmitting data over a network connection, (2) computer systems having a GUI, and (3) a drop-down menu were considered extra-solution activity. These have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Regarding (1), MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Regarding (2), the prior art of record indicates that receiving and transmitting data to external computers is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art (see Singletary at Para. 0037, Claim 3; see LaRue at Fig. 2A, Para. 0014, 0015). Regarding (3), the prior art of record indicates that receiving selection of data from a drop-down menu is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art (see US2004/0243012 to Ciaccio et al. at Para. 0093; US2002/0004729 to Zak et al. at Para. 0078; US2010/0169108 to Karkanias et al. at Para. 0044). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claim 2 merely describes details of the temporary assignment. Dependent claims 3, 4, 5 merely describe the types of selection options that are part of the first set of website selection options. Dependent claims 6, 7, 8 merely describe the types of selection options that are part of the first set of website selection options.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 21, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant reiterates that the claims do recite how the eliminating step is performed, not merely a result for reasons previously set forth. Applicant further reiterates that the aspects pointed out for BASCOM are present here.
Regarding (a), the Examiner disagrees and reiterates the prior response(s) to these arguments. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reason(s) previously presented.
Firstly, the display of the drop-down menu that displays the filtered list of providers is not extra solution activity because displaying the filtered list within the drop-down is the key to the system enforcing the procuring cause protection that the Examiner has previously agreed is not provided in the prior art. Thus, displaying the drop-down menu is directly the solution to the problem of enforcing the procuring cause protection when accepting bids from vendors for the hiring of eligible providers.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully submits that the drop-down menu is an additional element and represents extra-solution data gathering activity. It is a particular way to collect data. And, as the prior art of record indicates, was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art at the time of the invention. The “problem of enforcing the procuring cause protection when accepting bids from vendors for the hiring of eligible providers” is not a technical problem and thus whether or not the drop-down menu is part of the solution to that problem is immaterial.
Secondly, the display of the drop-down menu that displays the filtered list of providers is not extra solution activity, and particularly not mere data gathering, because the display of the drop-down menu within the graphical user interface is not the actual step of gathering data. To the contrary, receiving the selection by the vendor form the drop-down menu is where data is being collected by the system providing the drop-down menu.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that these sentences are self-contradictory. The drop-down is a means for collecting data. It was also well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art at the time of the invention. Even assuming arguendo that the drop-down menu was not collecting data, which it is, it would alternately represent data display and would still be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art at the time of the invention.
Therefore, as previously argued, the graphical user interface features including the drop-down menu and associated displays apply any abstract idea in a meaningful way that is beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Regarding (d), the Examiner disagrees for the reasons previously presented. A drop-down menu provides neither a practical application nor significantly more. As described in the basis of rejection, the drop-down menu represents extra-solution data gathering activity under step 2A2. Under step 2B, the prior art of record indicates that a drop-down menu is/was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field at the time of the invention. Well-understood, routine, and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Rosen et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2006/0229896) which discloses and employment matching system that uses a bi-directional match score between employer/employee.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683