DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the pre-appeal conference request submitted January 8, 2026 and the decision mailed February 10, 2026. The pre-appeal conference decision resulted in the reopening of prosecution. The present application is a DIV of application 14/215,807 (now U.S. Patent Number 10,902,523). Claims 1 – 17 and 22 – 23 were previously cancelled. Claims 18 and 24 are amended. Claims 38 and 39 are new. Claims 18 – 20 and 24 – 39 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 18 and 39 recite the phrase “single transplant partner”, however this feature is not disclosed in the specification. The specification merely recites that the Transplant Partner “can be one of various organizations or business forms, including nonprofit or for-profit entities, that serves to coordinate the transplantation methods and systems” (paragraph 49 of the published specification). The specification does not disclose, or make reference to, a single transplant partner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 18 – 20 and 24 – 39 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.
Step One
Claims 18 – 20 and 24 – 39 are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 18 recites reducing healthcare costs for a patient in need of a transplant comprising: estimating healthcare costs for the patient over a first time period without the transplant to provide a first estimate; estimating healthcare costs for the patient over a second time period with the transplant to provide a second estimate; and acquiring responsibility for the healthcare costs for the patient and transplanting the patient when the first estimate exceeds the second estimate.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity as well as mental processes, as reflected in the specification, which states that the present invention relates to “transplantation of biological material from a donor to a recipient, donor-recipient matching, and transplantation networks, particularly those involving kidney transplants” (paragraph 2 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “issues surrounding the transplantation process, including improving successful outcomes of transplantation procedures and mitigating financial burdens related thereto” (paragraph 22 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract because they are not improving a condition, nor a particular treatment, merely estimating costs of a patient in need of a transplant. These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 19 – 20 and 24 – 39 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18 – 21 and 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallis et al., herein after Wallis (Wallis et al. Kidney Paired Donation. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2011 (26): 2091-2099) in view of Segev et al., herein after Segev (Segev DL, Gentry SE, Warren DS, Reeb B, Montgomery RA. Kidney paired donation and optimizing the use of live donor organs. JAMA. 2005 Apr 20;293(15):1883-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1883. PMID: 15840863).
Claim 18 (Currently Amended). Wallis teaches a method of reducing healthcare costs for a patient in need of a transplant comprising:
estimating healthcare costs for the patient over a first time period without the transplant to provide a first estimate (page 2095 “Financial considerations” discloses one or the many perks of KPD is the substantial savings for performing a live kidney transplant as opposed to a prolonged dialysis treatment);
estimating healthcare costs for the patient over a second time period with the transplant to provide a second estimate (page 2096, column1, lines 26 – 43 discloses a financial intermediary to pay all of the expenses for donor workup and procurement up front, then allocating the costs back to the appropriate payer was a compatible donor-recipient is identified, where the cost of evaluating and recovering potential deceased donors for transplantation is paid by a third party, independent of payers and transplant hospitals).
Wallis fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Segev as cited:
acquiring responsibility, by a single transplant partner, for an entirety of the healthcare costs for the patient and transplanting the patient when the first estimate exceeds the second estimate, thereby reducing healthcare costs for the patient (page 188 discloses in section “Highly Sensitized Patients” that “The cost of implementing a transplant in 1 highly sensitized patient after 6.73 years of waiting and undergoing dialysis until a negative crossmatch deceased donor organ can be obtained is approximately $485 038. Alternatively, immediate transplantation with KPD followed by 6.73 years of immunosuppression costs only $204 738 (TABLE 3). Maximizing matches for these patients would produce the greatest benefit to the individual patient and reduce the burden to the health care system.”; page 1889 discloses in section “Cost Analysis” that “For a pool of 4000 potential recipients (<7% of the current UNOS registry), nearly $750 million would be saved by KPD compared with the cost of dialysis and deceased donor transplantation. The greatest cost savings would be realized by a national system that offered optimized KPD and desensitization of all unmatched recipients.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Wallis to further include kidney paired donation and optimizing the use of live donor organs as disclosed by Segev.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Wallis in this way to provide a cost effective and underused method of providing transplants to the large number of patients with incompatible donors (Segev: page 1884, column 1).
Claim 19 (Original). Wallis and Segev teach the method of Claim 18. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant comprises a kidney transplant (page 2091, column 1, lines 1 – 5 discloses kidney paired donation has become the fastest growing source of transplantable kidneys).
Claim 20 (Original). Wallis and Segev teach the method of Claim 18. Wallis teaches a method wherein the first time period includes costs of dialysis and the second time period includes costs of the transplant (page 2095, “Financial Considerations” discloses the USA would save at least $750 million annually by performing kidney transplants as opposed to dialysis).
Claim 21 (Original). Wallis and Segev teach the method of Claim 18. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant comprises a paired exchange between a first donor-recipient pair and a second donor-recipient pair (page 2095, column 1, lines 11 – 14 discloses one transplant center has two pairs that can participate in a two-way exchange, however, if these two pairs are put in a national pool, they may get matched to two other pairs from other transplant centers, indicating a second transplant center).
Claim 39 (New). Wallis and Segev teach the method of claim 18. Wallis teaches a method wherein the single transplant partner coordinates both the estimating steps and the transplanting step as part of an integrated cost-reduction program (page 2095 “Financial considerations” discloses one or the many perks of KPD is the substantial savings for performing a live kidney transplant as opposed to a prolonged dialysis treatment; page 2096, column1, lines 26 – 43 discloses a financial intermediary (an organ procurement organization), which is interpreted to be the same or similar to a transplant partner, to pay all of the expenses for donor workup and procurement up front, then allocating the costs back to the appropriate payer was a compatible donor-recipient is identified, where the cost of evaluating and recovering potential deceased donors for transplantation is paid by a third party, independent of payers and transplant hospitals).
Claims 24 – 28, 31 – 35, and 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallis et al., herein after Wallis (Wallis et al. Kidney Paired Donation. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2011 (26): 2091-2099) in view of Segev et al., herein after Segev (Segev DL, Gentry SE, Warren DS, Reeb B, Montgomery RA. Kidney paired donation and optimizing the use of live donor organs. JAMA. 2005 Apr 20;293(15):1883-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1883. PMID: 15840863) further in view of American Kidney Fund Financial Assistance Programs, herein after Kidney Fund (https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/resources/kidney_patient_assistance 1/).
Claim 24 (Currently Amended). Wallis and Segev teach the method of Claim 18. Wallis teaches a method wherein transplanting the patient when the first estimate exceeds the second estimate is performed at a first transplant center (page 2095 “Financial considerations” discloses one or the many perks of KPD is the substantial savings for performing a live kidney transplant as opposed to a prolonged dialysis treatment; page 2096, column1, lines 26 – 43 discloses a financial intermediary to pay all of the expenses for donor workup and procurement up front, then allocating the costs back to the appropriate payer was a compatible donor-recipient is identified, where the cost of evaluating and recovering potential deceased donors for transplantation is paid by a third party, independent of payers and transplant hospitals).
Wallis and Segev fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Kidney Fund as cited:
wherein: a health insurance provider is responsible for the health care costs for the patient (column 3, lines 55 – 58 discloses providing affordable health insurance; column 4, lines 15 – 17 discloses a combinatorial blending of health insurance and other types of insurance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Wallis and Segev to further include providing treatment related financial assistance to qualified kidney patients as disclosed by Kidney Fund.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Wallis and Segev in this way by providing assistance in the form of help with the cost of health insurance premiums, prescription drugs, or transportation cost for treatment (Kidney Fund: page 2).
Claim 25 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 24. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant partner covers at least a portion of a transplantation cost of the first transplant center (page 2096, column 1, lines 15 – 20 discloses transplant programs utilizing KPD must fund incompatible donor evaluations, and administrative costs of the KPD matching programs; page 2096, column1, lines 26 – 43 discloses a financial intermediary to pay all of the expenses for donor workup and procurement up front, then allocating the costs back to the appropriate payer was a compatible donor-recipient is identified, where the cost of evaluating and recovering potential deceased donors for transplantation is paid by a third party, independent of payers and transplant hospitals).
Claim 26 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 24. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant provider receives protected health information from the health insurance provider, the protected health information including a number of recipients in need of transplantation (page 2094, column 1, lines 1 -5 discloses a list exchange (see Figure 3C) an incompatible donor donates to a candidate waiting for a deceased donor kidney, and in exchange, the recipient from the incompatible pair acquires priority on the wait-list for a future deceased organ donation).
Claim 27 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 24. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant partner provides the transplant center with a cost associated with transplanting the patient and the transplant partner receives at least a portion of an amount based on the reduced healthcare costs for the patient (page 2096, column 1, lines 15 – 20 discloses transplant programs utilizing KPD must fund incompatible donor evaluations, and administrative costs of the KPD matching programs; page 2096, column1, lines 26 – 43 discloses a financial intermediary to pay all of the expenses for donor workup and procurement up front, then allocating the costs back to the appropriate payer was a compatible donor-recipient is identified, where the cost of evaluating and recovering potential deceased donors for transplantation is paid by a third party, independent of payers and transplant hospitals).
Claim 28 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 24. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant comprises a paired exchange between a first donor-recipient pair and a second donor-recipient pair, the patient being the first recipient of the first donor-recipient pair (page 2095, column 1, lines 11 – 14 discloses one transplant center has two pairs that can participate in a two-way exchange, however, if these two pairs are put in a national pool, they may get matched to two other pairs from other transplant centers, indicating a second transplant center).
Claim 31 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 24. Wallis teaches a method wherein the transplant partner is a member of a group consisting of: a re-insurance company, a consultation company, and a part of the health insurance provider (page 2096, column 1, lines 27 – 50 discloses an organ procurement organization which evaluates and recovers expenses for organ donation).
Claim 32 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28. Wallis teaches a method wherein the first donor-recipient pair and the second donor-recipient pair are comprised by a pool of a plurality of donor-recipient pairs, each donor-recipient pair including a recipient in need of the transplant and a donor willing to provide the transplant to the recipient (page 2095, column 1, lines 11 – 12 discloses two pairs put into a national pool, that may be matched to two other pairs from other transplant centers).
Claim 33 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28. Wallis teaches a method further comprising identifying, by the transplant partner, the paired exchange by:
identifying a first biological material from a first donor to transplant to the first recipient (page 2091, column 1, lines 1 – 5 discloses kidney paired donation), the first donor and the first recipient not from the same donor-recipient pair (page 2095, column 1, lines 11 – 14 discloses one transplant center has two pairs that can participate in a two-way exchange, however, if these two pairs are put in a national pool, they may get matched to two other pairs from other transplant centers, indicating a second transplant center), the first recipient overcoming a first barrier including an immunological barrier, the first barrier preventing transplantation between the donor-recipient pair of the first recipient (page 2091, column 2, lines 11 – 16 discloses blood type incompatibility, which is a type of immunological barrier); and
identifying a second biological material from a second donor to transplant to the second recipient, the second donor and the second recipient not from the same donor- recipient pair (page 2095, column 1, lines 11 – 14 discloses one transplant center has two pairs that can participate in a two-way exchange, however, if these two pairs are put in a national pool, they may get matched to two other pairs from other transplant centers indicating the second donor and second recipient are not from the same donor-recipient pair), the second recipient overcoming a second barrier including a financial barrier (page 2095 “Financial considerations” discloses one or the many perks of KPD is the substantial savings for performing a live kidney transplant as opposed to a prolonged dialysis treatment, indicating overcoming a financial barrier), the financial barrier preventing transplantation between the donor-recipient pair of the second recipient (page 2096, column 1, lines 3 – 20 discloses insurance companies are reluctant to pay for the workup of a potential KPD donor if he or she will not provide an organ to a patient covered by that insurance company, and private payers cannot justify paying for the evaluation of a potential donor if there is uncertainty as to whether that donor will ever provide a transplant).
Claim 34 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28.
Wallis and Segev fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Kidney Fund as cited:
wherein a saving resulting from when the first estimate exceeds the second estimate is used to offset a transplant cost for the second recipient of the second donor-recipient pair ((page 188 discloses in section “Highly Sensitized Patients” that “The cost of implementing a transplant in 1 highly sensitized patient after 6.73 years of waiting and undergoing dialysis until a negative crossmatch deceased donor organ can be obtained is approximately $485 038. Alternatively, immediate transplantation with KPD followed by 6.73 years of immunosuppression costs only $204 738 (TABLE 3). Maximizing matches for these patients would produce the greatest benefit to the individual patient and reduce the burden to the health care system.”; page 1889 discloses in section “Cost Analysis” that “For a pool of 4000 potential recipients (<7% of the current UNOS registry), nearly $750 million would be saved by KPD compared with the cost of dialysis and deceased donor transplantation. The greatest cost savings would be realized by a national system that offered optimized KPD and desensitization of all unmatched recipients.”).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund is discussed in the rejection of claim 24, and incorporated herein.
Claim 35 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28. Wallis teaches a method further comprising identifying, by the transplant partner, the paired exchange by: identifying a third biological material from a third donor to transplant to a third recipient, the third donor and the third recipient not from the same donor-recipient pair, the third recipient overcoming a third barrier (Figure 3 discloses a third donor satisfying a hard to match recipient).
Claim 38 (New). Wallis and Segev teach the method of claim 18.
Wallis and Segev fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Kidney Fund as cited:
wherein acquiring responsibility for the entirety of the healthcare costs comprises assuming financial liability for both dialysis costs during the first time period and transplantation costs during the second time period (page 3 discloses Safety Net Grants to provide dialysis patients or kidney transplant recipients financial help for care expenses not covered by health insurance or governmental programs (Medicare Part A covers hospital and related care (including transplants)), which thereby reduces the costs for the patient, and in addition, a Health Insurance Premium Program will pay the premiums for Medicare Part B, Medicaid, commercial health plans, Medigap, and Cobra, indicating the combination of government programs and/or commercial programs cover the entire healthcare costs for the patient).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund is discussed in the rejection of claim 24, and incorporated herein.
Claims 29 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallis et al., herein after Wallis (Wallis et al. Kidney Paired Donation. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2011 (26): 2091-2099) in view of Segev et al., herein after Segev (Segev DL, Gentry SE, Warren DS, Reeb B, Montgomery RA. Kidney paired donation and optimizing the use of live donor organs. JAMA. 2005 Apr 20;293(15):1883-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1883. PMID: 15840863) further in view of American Kidney Fund Financial Assistance Programs, herein after Kidney Fund (https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/resources/kidney_patient_assistance 1/) further in view of KentuckyOne Health, herein after KentuckyOne (“Jewish Hospital Transplant Center Participates in First International Paired Kidney Exchange in America”. KentuckyOne Health, 1 June 2012 (01.06.2012) [online]).
Claim 29 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28.
Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by KentuckyOne as cited:
wherein the first recipient is a citizen of a first nation and the second recipient is a citizen of a second nation (paragraphs 5 and 6 discloses a patient from one country (Greece) receives a kidney from a donor in different country (USA), and a recipient in the USA received a kidney from a donor in Greece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund to further include an international paired kidney donor exchange in America as disclosed by KentuckyOne.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund in this way to enlarge the donor pool by including other nations, thereby getting more Americans transplanted (KentuckyOne: paragraph 9).
Claim 30 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev, Kidney Fund, and KentuckyOne teach the method of Claim 29.
Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by KentuckyOne as cited:
wherein the first transplant center is in the first nation and a second transplant center is in a second nation, the method further comprising transplanting the second recipient of the second donor-recipient pair at the second transplant center (paragraphs 5 and 6 discloses a patient from one country (Greece) receives a kidney from a donor in different country (USA), and a recipient in the USA received a kidney from a donor in Greece; paragraph 8 discloses the transplant centers the surgeries took place).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Wallis, Segev, Kidney Fund, and KentuckyOne is discussed in the rejection of claim 29, and incorporated herein.
Claims 36 and 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallis et al., herein after Wallis (Wallis et al. Kidney Paired Donation. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2011 (26): 2091-2099) in view of Segev et al., herein after Segev (Segev DL, Gentry SE, Warren DS, Reeb B, Montgomery RA. Kidney paired donation and optimizing the use of live donor organs. JAMA. 2005 Apr 20;293(15):1883-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1883. PMID: 15840863) further in view of American Kidney Fund Financial Assistance Programs, herein after Kidney Fund (https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/resources/kidney_patient_assistance 1/) in view of Abukwedar (U.S. Publication Number 2005/0010449 A1).
Claim 36 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund teach the method of Claim 28.
Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Abukwedar as cited:
further comprising identifying, by the transplant partner, the paired exchange by: identifying an nth biological material from an nth donor to transplant to an nth recipient, the nth donor and the nth recipient not from the same donor-recipient pair, the nth recipient overcoming an nth barrier, wherein n is an integer greater than three (Figure 3; paragraph 43 discloses an exchange of organs between more than three patients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the method of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund to further include a living and deceased human organ exchange program where a first patient in need of a human organ or part of an organ transplantation as disclosed by Abukwedar.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the method of Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund in this way to increase the supply of human organs and partial organs through a process of pairing persons in need of an organ transplantation with the donation of one organ and receipt of another organ by each person in need of an organ (Abukwedar: paragraph 15).
Claim 37 (Previously Presented). Wallis, Segev, Kidney Fund, and Abukwedar teach the method of Claim 36.
Wallis, Segev, and Kidney Fund fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Abukwedar as cited:
wherein the first donor of the first donor-recipient pair is paired with the nth recipient (paragraph 43 paragraph 43 discloses an exchange of organs between more than three patients, see reference character 32 and reference character 36).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Wallis, Segev, Kidney Fund, and Abukwedar is discussed in the rejection of claim 36, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues Kidney Fund does not and cannot disclose the claimed “acquiring responsibility for the entirety of healthcare costs for the patient and transplanting the patient when the first estimate exceeds the second estimate”. The Examiner submits new prior art has been recited regarding the limitation, thus the Applicant’s argument is moot.
The Applicant argues Wallis in view of Kidney Fund cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner submits new prior art has been recited regarding the limitation, thus the Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
KRISTINE K. RAPILLO
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/KRISTINE K RAPILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights