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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1, 5-6, 8, 13, 18 and 22, filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are pending, and are hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/remarks
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged and the argument is not persuasive. The independent claims 1, 13 and 18, has been amended to disclose “modifying a pecuniary value of the digital token from a first value of the digital token that is based on a cost of the healthcare service at a second time before the first time to a second value of the digital token that is based on the cost of the healthcare service at the first time, and the digital token issued by an insurer;” Emphasis added by the Examiner. And Applicant further assert in page 8 of 13 of the response that [Support for this amendment is found throughout the specification, for example, at paragraph [0032] (e.g., the pecuniary value of the token can depend on the cost of the corresponding procedure at a given time). The cited references fail to teach or suggest at least the above-quoted features of amended independent claim 1. In particular, Mohtar sets the value (price) of procedures to the value of the tokens rather than adjusting the value of the tokens based on a changing price of the procedure at different times. In addition, the tiered tokens on Mohtar are used for payment, not the cost of services token, so Mohtar's cost of services tokens is not "restricted to payment for the healthcare service" and the value of Mohtar's tokens used to pay for healthcare services do not update based on changing cost of the services at different times].
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion, after analyzing the disclosed supporting paragraph [0032] recommended by the Applicant, there is no disclosure of the pecuniary value of the token been modified in any form, instead it confirms that the token has a fixed value of 0.75 in the example, in the paragraph, as disclosed. See for example “…The provider device then determines the amount owed by the patient at block 250. This is carried out by the at least one processor determining the cost of the service (e.g., based on a user input or based on a lookup value that provides a price corresponding to the service), the value of the tokens in the patient's wallet that are allowed to be used for the service, and determining the difference. The difference in this example would be the amount owed by the patient. In this example, the provider device determines via the at least one processor that the value of a general medical evaluation is $1000. The provider device determines that 1 general medical evaluation token is worth 1 general medical evaluation. The patient only has 0.75 general medical evaluation tokens, so the difference in value is $250 (e.g., 0.75 x $1000 = $750 in token value, so the amount owed by the patient would be $1000 - $750 in token value, or $250). Alternatively, the tokens may provide a specific money value (e.g., $750 for a particular service). The value of the tokens may be based on the patient's insurance policy and its benefits and may be based on how many insurance benefits have been used in comparison to a maximum amount covered by the insurer, a patient deductible, etc.,…the healthcare provider device efficiently and securely may access the digital ledger with the patient's digital wallet to determine, more directly, the amount of money (if any) to be charged to a patient, and to collect at least some of the payment from the digital wallet (e.g., based on the pre-issued tokens made accessible to the healthcare provider for payment). If the tokens provide sufficient monetary value for the services rendered, then the patient may not owe anything, and the healthcare provider may avoid having to bill the patient. However, if the patient's digital wallet does contain sufficient funds to cover the cost for the products or services rendered, the healthcare blockchain system may facilitate subtracting the cost form patient's digital wallet…” Therefore, the pecuniary value of the token was never modified. Further analysis of the specification did not provide an instance or embodiment that support this newly amended limitation. This is New Matter, because the modification of the digital token is not in the original filed disclosure.
After further search consideration, Examiner is introducing a new prior art, FAR to teach modifying the pecuniary value of cost of services, in combination with Mohtar to teach the newly amended limitation “modifying a pecuniary value of the digital token from a first value of the digital token that is based on a cost of the healthcare service at a second time before the first time to a second value of the digital token that is based on the cost of the healthcare service at the first time, and the digital token issued by an insurer;”.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-2, 4-14, 16-19 and 21-23 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 18, each recite “modifying a pecuniary value of the digital token from a first value of the digital token that is based on a cost of the healthcare service at a second time before the first time to a second value of the digital token that is based on the cost of the healthcare service at the first time, and the digital token issued by an insurer;”.
There is no disclosure of the pecuniary value of the token been modified in any form, instead Applicant suggested paragraph 0032 confirms that the token has a fixed value of 0.75 in the example, in the paragraph, as disclosed. See for example “…The provider device then determines the amount owed by the patient at block 250. This is carried out by the at least one processor determining the cost of the service (e.g., based on a user input or based on a lookup value that provides a price corresponding to the service), the value of the tokens in the patient's wallet that are allowed to be used for the service, and determining the difference. The difference in this example would be the amount owed by the patient. In this example, the provider device determines via the at least one processor that the value of a general medical evaluation is $1000. The provider device determines that 1 general medical evaluation token is worth 1 general medical evaluation. The patient only has 0.75 general medical evaluation tokens, so the difference in value is $250 (e.g., 0.75 x $1000 = $750 in token value, so the amount owed by the patient would be $1000 - $750 in token value, or $250). Alternatively, the tokens may provide a specific money value (e.g., $750 for a particular service). The value of the tokens may be based on the patient's insurance policy and its benefits and may be based on how many insurance benefits have been used in comparison to a maximum amount covered by the insurer, a patient deductible, etc.,…the healthcare provider device efficiently and securely may access the digital ledger with the patient's digital wallet to determine, more directly, the amount of money (if any) to be charged to a patient, and to collect at least some of the payment from the digital wallet (e.g., based on the pre-issued tokens made accessible to the healthcare provider for payment). If the tokens provide sufficient monetary value for the services rendered, then the patient may not owe anything, and the healthcare provider may avoid having to bill the patient. However, if the patient's digital wallet does contain sufficient funds to cover the cost for the products or services rendered, the healthcare blockchain system may facilitate subtracting the cost form patient's digital wallet…” Therefore, the pecuniary value of the token was never modified. Further analysis of the specification did not provide an instance or embodiment that support this newly amended limitation of modifying the pecuniary value of the token. This is New Matter, because the modification of the digital token is not in the original filed disclosure.
Dependent claims 2, 4-12, 21-22; 14-17, 23; and 19, are also rejected since they depend on claims 1, 13 and 18, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 3
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 17-18 and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omar Mohtar, (US 20190266597 A1) in view of “NPL – Federal Acquisition Regulation - Price Redetermination/Retroactive” hereafter ‘FAR’, and further in view of Stephens (US 20220358450 A1)
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 18, Mohtar teaches a method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations comprising:
determining, by at least one processor of a device, a cost of a healthcare service provided to a patient by a healthcare provider at the first time {see at least ¶¶ 0056 “…The sales and pricing sector module 241 displays 248 the determined price to the consumers via a user interfaces to the consumer devices of the consumers or other digital interaction. A consumer 202 interested in purchasing healthcare services at the determined prices may communicate (via a user interface on the computer computing device 202 to the healthcare service application 217) to execute a purchase transaction 249 of an amount of healthcare cryptocurrency 255 at the determined price…”}.
accessing, by the at least one processor, a blockchain digital ledger {see at least ¶¶ 0010-0012, 0032, 0055}.
identifying, by the at least one processor, a digital wallet of the patient stored using the blockchain digital ledger {see at least ¶¶ 0010, 0039 “… The consumer is a registered user having an account with the healthcare service application 217, and an encrypted digital wallet is coupled to the consumer's account for storing and processing the healthcare cryptocurrency. The consumer communicates with the healthcare service application 217 through a user interface on the consumer device 202 to the healthcare service application 217. The depicted consumer is representative of all non-health insurance and non-healthcare providers who use the digital currency for healthcare (medical) services}.
identifying, by the at least one processor and at the first time, a digital token stored in the digital wallet, the digital token restricted to payment for the healthcare service {see at least ¶¶ 0042-0046},
[modifying] a pecuniary value of the digital token from a first value of the digital token that is based on a cost of the healthcare service at a second time before the first time to a second value of the digital token that is based on the cost of the healthcare service at the first time, and the digital token issued by an insurer {see at least ¶¶ 0042-0047 “The second-tier tokens (referred to in some embodiments as “MedCoins”), may only be exchanged via the healthcare service application 217 in limited one-way transactions. First, the consumer via a user interface on the health insurance company device 202 to the healthcare service application 217 may purchase 207 (engage in a payment transaction for) a health-related service from the healthcare provider using the second-tier tokens, which are placed in the encrypted digital wallet of the consumer… second, the health insurance company may negotiate 211 with the healthcare provider for an exclusive contract (agreement) to buy a particular proportion or percentage of the second tier tokens acquired by the healthcare provider at a set cost. The healthcare provider via a user interface on the healthcare provider device 203 to the healthcare service application 217 (executing corresponding smart contracts) may distribute (sell) 212 the particular proportion of received second tier tokens to the health insurance company (via the health insurance company device 204) at the agreed cost, which are periodically placed in the encrypted digital wallet of the health insurance company. The healthcare service application 217 may be implemented (configured) to enforce the distribution at the agreed proportions and costs”, and also ¶¶ 0048, 0057, 0077 “At step 410, when the medical visit is billed to the patient user 401, the service packet 407 of the visit is part of the communication sent from the HCP 401 to the patient user 401 (including the cost represented by the combine tokens). The system 400 also converts the service packet 407 into a public packet (mc) 411, which is assigned a cost of medical services token (currency), e.g., MedCredits. The cost of medical services token does not contain a monetary value, but does reflect the cost of the medical services represented in the service packet 407 as a medical credit. The cost of medical services token (e.g., MedCredits), for simplicity, is shown in USD (1MC=1USD)…”}.
updating, by the at least one processor, the healthcare record of the patient to indicate that the healthcare provider provided the healthcare service to the patient {see at least ¶¶ 0076-0078 “…The public ledger 420 provides a transparent medical service record of all patient users of the system 400, without any sensitive information of the patient users accessible through the record. The system 400 enables the public to access the public ledger 420 in order to use the de-personalized and de-privatized medical data for various applications (e.g., research, financial, pharmaceutical, optimization in healthcare industries, and such). The data in the public ledger can be quickly indexed and searched based on the unique assigned flags (without having the overhead of analyzing all the private information details of a patient's visit to a HCP)”, and also claim 1 “ … ; transmitting by the user to the healthcare provider, through the user interface to the healthcare service application, a confirmation of the payment request in the specified amount; transferring, by the healthcare service application, the specified amount from the healthcare service account of the user to the healthcare service account of the healthcare provider; and recording, by the healthcare service application, the given health related service, the healthcare provider, and the specified amount in the blockchain”}.
With respect to the limitation “modifying a pecuniary value of the digital token…” Although Mohtar teaches the health insurance company may negotiate with the healthcare provider for an exclusive contract (agreement) to set the second-tier tokens (e.g., “MedCoins”), acquired by the healthcare provider at a set cost, which helps to make the change in the pecuniary value of the token irrelevant, because future cost of the services has been negotiated {see at least ¶ 0047}. Furthermore, Mohtar clearly teaches that the tokens have a value {¶ 0012} and that one of skill in the art would understand from Mohtar that the value of these tokens might need to change over time as buying power fluctuates when healthcare costs fluctuate {¶ 0042}. In other words, Mohtar shows it was known for the value of the tokens to need to change over time, just not specifically how the value might change.
However, FAR teaches modifying the pecuniary value of cost of services in [pages 133-134 “(d) Price determination. Upon the Contracting Officer's receipt of the data required by paragraph (c) above, the Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall promptly negotiate to redetermine fair and reasonable prices for supplies delivered and services performed by the Contractor under this contract. (e) Contract modification. The negotiated redetermination of price shall be evidenced by a modification to this contract, signed by the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. (f) Adjusting billing prices. Pending execution of the contract modification (see paragraph (e) above), the Contractor shall submit invoices or vouchers in accordance with billing prices stated in this contract. If at any time it appears that the then-current billing prices will be substantially greater than the estimated final prices, or if the Contractor submits data showing that the redetermined prices will be substantially greater than the current billing prices, the parties shall negotiate an appropriate decrease or increase in billing prices. Any billing price adjustment shall be reflected in a contract modification and shall not affect the redetermination of prices under this clause. After the contract modification for price redetermination is executed, the total amount paid or to be paid on all invoices or vouchers shall be adjusted to reflect the agreed-upon prices, and any resulting additional payments, refunds, or credits shall be made promptly”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar to include the elements of FAR. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have means for accommodating variance in paying for the cost of services. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process. FAR is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, as well as having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, as well as FAR would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, in view of the evidence provided in Mohtar in view of FAR, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to set a future price based on a past value of the good or service. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR.
The combination of Mohtar in view of FAR teaches healthcare cost payment and patient record as disclosed above, but does not explicitly disclose, “identifying, by the at least one processor, on the blockchain digital ledger, a uniform resource identifier stored in the digital token in the digital wallet, the uniform resource identifier identifying a location where a healthcare record of the patient is stored”.
However, Stephens discloses:
“identifying, by the at least one processor, on the blockchain digital ledger, a
uniform resource identifier stored in the digital token in the digital wallet, the uniform resource identifier identifying a location where a […] record […] is stored {see at least ¶ 0061 “…As discussed with respect to the token 400, certain parts of the token 400 include on-chain pointers that point to data outside of the blockchain ledger 300, such as a data structure 140, with such data being stored “off-chain.” The payload 330/360/390 of the blockchain ledger 300 may store hashes of off-chain data, so that a verifying device can compute a hash of the off-chain data and compare the computed hash to the stored hash that is stored on-chain to verify that the off-chain data is accurate…”, and also ¶ 0078 “The token 400 may include on-chain pointers to off-chain metadata 440. The off-chain metadata 430 can include, for example, a description of the token 400, a description of the digital asset 405 that the token 400 represents, some immutable attributes or properties of the digital asset 405 and/or the token 400, or some combination thereof. Some digital assets 405 and/or tokens 400 may require significant quantities of metadata, which can require a lot of storage space to store, and can thus be expensive to store on-chain in terms of execution fee charges (such as gas on an Ethereum blockchain ledger). Thus, it may be more efficient to store this metadata off-chain in one or more off-chain locations, such as the data structures 140. The on-chain pointer can include a uniform resource identifier (URI), such as a uniform resource locator (URL)…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR to include the elements of the Stephens. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a wallet storing a token that include a URL for locating a resource/record. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services. Stephens is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, as well as using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR as well as Stephens would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses wherein the at least one processor is further
configured to: generate a smart contract including a token incentive for the patient to receive a specific healthcare service {see at least ¶¶ 0010, 0038}.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses, further comprising: issuing, based on a smart contract of the blockchain digital ledger and at the second time, the digital token by an insurer {see at least ¶¶ 0045-0049}.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses further comprising transferring, based on a smart contract of the blockchain digital ledger, the digital token from the first digital wallet of the patient to the healthcare provider {see at least ¶¶ 0042-0046}.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses wherein identifying a digital wallet of the patient is based on a smart contract of the blockchain digital ledger {see at least ¶¶ 0039, 0055-0056 “…Upon completion of the purchase, the sales and pricing sector module 241 puts the purchased amount of healthcare cryptocurrency 255 in the encrypted digital wallet couple to the consumer's healthcare service account”}.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses further comprising requesting, by the at least one processor, generation of a new block on the blockchain digital ledger, the new block indicating that the healthcare service was provided to the patient {see at least ¶¶ 0010-0012, 0032, 0055}.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses wherein the digital token is issued at the second time before the healthcare service is provided to the patient by the healthcare provider at the first time {see at least ¶ 0012 “…Each of the one or more medical transactions being assigned a token representing value (cost) of the medical transaction, and also ¶ 0015}.
Claims 5-6 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omar Mohtar, (US 20190266597 A1) in view of “NPL – Federal Acquisition Regulation - Price Redetermination/Retroactive” hereafter ‘FAR’, and in view of Stephens (US 20220358450 A1) and further in view of Walker et al., (US 20200019946 A1).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses further comprising: identifying, by the at least one processor, a financial account of the patient {see at least ¶ 0006, 0010 “…In example embodiments, an encrypted digital wallet is coupled to each healthcare service account for storing and processing the healthcare cryptocurrency. In example embodiments, smart contracts are executed by the healthcare service application to perform transferring of the healthcare cryptocurrency and recording in the blockchain…”}, and
transferring, based on a smart contract of the blockchain digital ledger […] {see at least ¶¶ 0010, 0038, 0055 “…The billing sector module 210 (via smart contracts) periodically (based on the agreement) divides the specified amount of the healthcare cryptocurrency between the health insurance companies 244. The billing sector module 210 (via smart contracts) then transfers 245 the divided healthcare cryptocurrency to the digital wallets of the respective health insurance companies 244 and collects the specified price from the health insurance companies 244…”}, but does not explicitly disclose “…a difference between the cost at the first time and the pecuniary value provided by the digital token at the first time from a financial account of the patient to a financial account of the healthcare provider”.
However, Walker discloses “…a difference between the cost at the first time and the pecuniary value provided by the digital token at the first time from a financial account of the patient to a financial account of the healthcare provider” {¶ 0026 “dynamic billing event”, ¶ 0123 “…This is combined to generate an estimate of costs (64) which is then creates an authorization form (65) for payment which is presented (66) to the patient (49). This data can also generate other actions (68) such as collections, staff reviews, discounts and payment plan which may also be used to generate a different authorization (65) presented (66) to the patient (49)…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens, to include the elements of the Walker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have the use of the dynamic billing event. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and discloses using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain. Walker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using the dynamic billing event in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using the dynamic billing event, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Walker would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Walker.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses, further comprising: “identifying, by the at least one processor, a second digital wallet of the patient stored using the blockchain digital ledger transferring, based on a smart contract of the blockchain digital ledger…” {see at least ¶¶ 0046-0049 “…Further, the first tier and second tier tokens may be segregated in the encrypted digital wallet of the consumer, healthcare provider, and health insurance company by having an individual platform for each tier token…”}, but does not disclose “…a difference between the cost at the first time and the pecuniary value provided by the digital token at the first time from a second digital wallet of the patient to the digital wallet of the healthcare provider”.
However, Walker discloses “…a difference between the cost at the first time and the pecuniary value provided by the digital token at the first time from a second digital wallet of the patient to the digital wallet of the healthcare provider” {see at least ¶¶ 0026, 0123}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens, to include the elements of the Walker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have the use of the dynamic billing event. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and discloses using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain. Walker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using the dynamic billing event in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using the dynamic billing event, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Walker would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Walker.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above
Furthermore, Walker discloses wherein the digital token is configured to be exchanged or lent between patients on a digital marketplace, and wherein a price at which the digital token is lent is different than the pecuniary value {see at least ¶ 0123 “…This is combined to generate an estimate of costs (64) which is then creates an authorization form (65) for payment which is presented (66) to the patient (49). This data can also generate other actions (68) such as collections, staff reviews, discounts and payment plan which may also be used to generate a different authorization (65) presented (66) to the patient (49)”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens, to include the elements of the Walker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have the use of the dynamic billing event. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and discloses using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain. Walker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using the dynamic billing event in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using the dynamic billing event, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Walker would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Walker.
Claims 2, 4, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omar Mohtar, (US 20190266597 A1) in view of “NPL – Federal Acquisition Regulation - Price Redetermination/Retroactive” hereafter ‘FAR’, and in view of Stephens (US 20220358450 A1) and further in view of Robert A. Rice, (US 20210279695 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 14 and 19, the combination of Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: accessing a non-fungible token of the blockchain digital ledger, wherein the non-fungible token comprises the uniform resource identifier.
However, Rice discloses further comprising: accessing a non-fungible token of the blockchain digital ledger, wherein the non-fungible token comprises the uniform resource identifier {see at least ¶ 0038 “… a non-fungible token" (NFT) is a unique digital file stored on a digital ledger called a blockchain. An NFT is a cryptographic token, but unlike cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and many network or utility tokens, which are not mutually interchangeable, and thus not fungible. An NFT is created by uploading a file… the NFT token includes a reference to an asset, such as an image
file, that may be stored elsewhere and generally referenced with a URL... “}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens, to include the elements of the Rice. One would have the token to be Non-fungible. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and Stephens discloses using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain. Rice is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a Non-fungible token, in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using a Non-fungible token, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Rice would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Rice.
With respect to claims 4 and 16, the combination of Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as disclosed above.
Furthermore, Mohtar discloses further comprising: requesting, by the at least one
processor, access from the patient to the healthcare record of the patient {see at least ¶¶ 0010-0012, 0032, 0055), and
And Stephens further discloses receiving, by the at least one processor, access granted by the patient to the […] record of the […] {see at least ¶¶ 0061, 0078}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Rice, to include the elements of the Stephens. One would have a wallet storing a token that include a URL for locating a resource/record. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and Rice discloses a Non-fungible token. Stephens is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using a Non-fungible token, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Rice would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Rice.
With respect to claims 21 and 23, the combination of Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens teaches all the subject matter as discussed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Rice discloses further comprising: modifying the uniform resource identifier based on updating the “…” record {see at least ¶¶ 0038, 0065, 0090-0092}.
And Mohtar further disclose […] (e.g., token) in healthcare system {see at least ¶¶ 0012, 0015, 0069 “…The stored medical data may be organized based on the medical transactions performed during each patient visit to the HCP…” }.
However, Rice discloses further comprising: accessing a non-fungible token of the blockchain digital ledger, wherein the non-fungible token comprises the uniform resource identifier {see at least ¶ 0038 “… a non-fungible token" (NFT) is a unique digital file stored on a digital ledger called a blockchain. An NFT is a cryptographic token, but unlike cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and many network or utility tokens, which are not mutually interchangeable, and thus not fungible. An NFT is created by uploading a file… the NFT token includes a reference to an asset, such as an image
file, that may be stored elsewhere and generally referenced with a URL... “}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mohtar in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens, to include the elements of the Rice. One would have the token to be Non-fungible. Furthermore, Mohtar discloses using blockchain and digital tokens stored in a wallet in the healthcare billing process, and FAR discloses having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and discloses using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain. Rice is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a Non-fungible token, in the same or similar context. Because both using blockchain and digital wallet in the healthcare billing process, and having a means for accommodating variance in payment for the cost of services, and using a URL stored in a token in a wallet to link a resource off chain, as well as using a Non-fungible token, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Mohtar, in view of FAR, and in view of Stephens as well as Rice would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mohtar/FAR/Stephens/Rice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20140278511 A1) – Fielding et al., Information Exchange for Health Care Providers - relates generally to healthcare management, and more particularly to systems and methodologies for establishing an information exchange for health care organizations.
2) (US Pat. 8060382 B1) – Lee et al., Method and System for Providing a Healthcare Bill Settlement System – relates to providing a healthcare bill settlement system includes a process for providing a healthcare bill settlement system whereby data representing a healthcare service consumer's EOB data associated with a given healthcare service item is obtained by the process for providing a healthcare bill settlement system.
3) (WO 2023043807 A1) - Gross et al., Non-Fungible Token System for Ensuring Ethical, Efficient and Effective Management of Biospecimens -relates to systems and methods for managing distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain implementations and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), in a healthcare ecosystem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is
(571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698