DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the arguments, amendments, and Request for Continued Examination filed January 26, 2026.
Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, and 27-29 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
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, 5-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1, 5-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, and 27-29 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(I), independent claims 1 is directed towards, “A method of implementing an innovation, the method comprising: assessing an innovation using a computer by: simulating a synthetic population of entities from known distributions of characteristics of a real population of entities, the entities of the synthetic population having entity attributes; performing discrete event simulation (DES) of a baseline scenario that does not include an innovation and an innovation scenario that includes the innovation, the DES of the baseline and innovation scenarios using the same synthetic population of entities, the DES being defined by a plurality of resources having resource attributes, a plurality of events having event attributes, and the synthetic population of entities, the computer programmed to implement a DES simulator configured to run the scenario in which each individual entity of the synthetic population of entities moves through the DES of the scenario including performing time steps per resource in which the entities experience events; and generating outcomes for the scenario based on the running of the scenario, wherein the generated outcomes include at least one comparison of the outcomes for the innovation scenario versus the outcomes for the baseline scenario; and presenting the generated outcomes on a display”. Independent claim 13 is further describing, “regarding performing uncertainty analysis on the generated outcomes for the at least two scenarios” and “designing a data collection strategy for the innovation in the healthcare service delivery and payment for services that targets an area of high uncertainty” and claim 29 is further describing, “identifying gaps in data collection based on the increasingly precise DES; and designing data collection strategies based on the outcomes for the increasingly precise DES”. The independent claims are merely describing a generic economic decision model for “what-if” analysis. The claims are describing an economic modeling system for to propose and compare results within a healthcare service. Further, the proposed and baseline scenarios are for healthcare service delivery and payment transactions (further describing the economic elements in terms of services provided or cost of services). The claims merely provide the framework for the economic model using discrete event simulation with entities simulated through the baseline and proposed innovation. There is no specific algorithm or modeling technique that would be considered an additional element (further discussed below in steps 2(a)(II) and 2(b)). The discrete event simulation is an economic modeling technique and the claims fall within the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “using a computer; A rapid prototyping method for prototyping a process in a healthcare domain, the rapid prototyping method comprising using a computer”. The computer element is discussed in paragraphs [48-50, 55-56, and 63]. The computer is described using high level of generality and common pc elements. This is based on the specific sentence, “The primary requirements to use this tool to develop a simulation tool is run it on a single common PC, which a Windows system” [55]. The claim limitation is merely to have a computer to run the discrete event simulation and based on the originally filed specification the computing device to implement the simulation is a common PC with a common operating system (windows). There is no transformation of the technological elements into a practical application as the claims merely provide generic technological elements to implement the abstract idea (economic model for cost-benefit analysis). In terms of the discrete event simulation, there is no specific algorithm or modeling technique for performing the DES. The originally filed specification [9-18 and 42-50] provides the framework for generic DES and baseline/innovation scenarios. The framework is merely describing DES, however, there is no specific specification or claim language regarding the specific algorithm or modeling technique to perform the simulation. The claims are merely stating generic technological elements using DES to implement the financial “what-if” simulation. The uncertainty analysis (within claim 13) is further generic analysis. There is no specific algorithm or steps to provide the uncertainty analysis. The uncertainty is generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements are not describing a technical improvement and are merely using generic technological elements to implement the abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “using a computer; A rapid prototyping method for prototyping a process in a healthcare domain, the rapid prototyping method comprising using a computer” The computer element is discussed in paragraphs [48-50, 55-56, and 63]. The computer is described using high level of generality and common pc elements. This is based on the specific sentence, “The primary requirements to use this tool to develop a simulation tool is run it on a single common PC, which a Windows system” [55]. The claim limitation is merely to have a computer to run the discrete event simulation and based on the originally filed specification the computing device to implement the simulation is a common PC with a common operating system (windows). There is no transformation of the technological elements into a practical application as the claims merely provide generic technological elements to implement the abstract idea (economic model for cost-benefit analysis). In terms of the discrete event simulation, there is no specific algorithm or modeling technique for performing the DES. The originally filed specification [9-18 and 42-50] provides the framework for generic DES and baseline/innovation scenarios. The framework is merely describing DES, however, there is no specific specification or claim language regarding the specific algorithm or modeling technique to perform the simulation. The claims are merely stating generic technological elements using DES to implement the financial “what-if” simulation. The uncertainty analysis (within claim 13) is further generic analysis. There is no specific algorithm or steps to provide the uncertainty analysis. The uncertainty is generic technology to implement the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements and as such the additional elements are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 5-8, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, and 27-28 are directed towards the identified abstract idea without providing additional elements beyond those considered in the independent claim. The dependent claims provide further aspects of the generic economic model, which partially has been discussed in relation to the identification and consideration of the abstract idea. The dependent claims describe that the model generates a synthetic population of entities (merely providing additional inputs within the model), having uncertainty analysis (using predefined scenarios or Monte Carlo sampling), defining the outputs in terms of aggregate and disaggregated outcomes and display for the results/outcomes (providing the results displayed to the user), what the domain is for the simulation model (merely non-functional descriptive material in terms of describing the simulation within United States healthcare domain), describing the proposed innovation outcome and that each entity moves through the DES, and implementing the innovation to the service delivery in accordance with the innovation in the delivery and payment for delivery. The dependent claims describe the claimed invention in terms of more elements for a generic economic model having generic analysis techniques and outcome results for a user to decide the “what-if” cost-benefit analysis. The specific iterations and considerations within the originally filed specification provide aspects of specific inputs, outputs, and analysis for outcomes in specific payment models, however, the claims, are broad and generic in terms of merely claiming a discrete event model with different generic analysis and outcome elements. Further, the implementation of an economic model is further describing the abstract idea. Putting aspects into practice based on the economic simulation is providing the business practice of implementing business ventures/ideas based on simulated results using different outputs. Thus the claims implementing the innovation are putting forth the business practice of performing the business relation outside of the simulation based on the output results. These aspects are merely furthering the abstract idea that the claimed invention, as currently written, is merely a generic economic model under the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity {fundamental economic practice}. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims, considered individually and as a whole, are directed towards an abstract idea of an economic cost-benefit model implemented on generic technological elements that falls within the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed January 26, 2026 on pages 10-11 that the claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments are with respect to new claim 29 and similar amendments to the independent claims in terms of the simulation and data collection identifying gaps and providing strategies within the healthcare system based on the evaluation analysis. Examiner notes that the claims are further describing the “what-if” analysis. That the end result and providing the end result based on the DES further falls into the identified abstract idea. Additionally, the consideration is that the claims are providing the outputs of the DES analysis. The newly and amended claim limitations are not describing a specific action or technical improvement, but rather displaying/providing the results of the analysis using the DES analysis techniques. The additional elements are directed towards generic technology to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mun [2015/0058260] (risk valuation using discrete probability analysis);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629