DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that prior art fails to teach every limitation of the amended claims. In response to Applicant’s argument, the arguments are directed toward the amendments and are therefore moot. See the updated rejection in light of the amendments.
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claims are similar to Example 41 of the PEG which relates to cryptographic communications between computer terminals. The amended claims recites transmitting the first input using encryption and a secure network connection. The amended claims also recite that the input is protected by an access control mechanism configured to restrict access to one or more portions of the input by unauthorized parties and also applying the machine learning algorithm to the encrypted input to determine the service offers. These features are analogous to Example 41 and amount to a practical application. In response to Applicant’s response, the additional elements (bolded below in the rejection) do not amount to a practical application. Due to their high level of generality, they amount to merely applying the abstract idea in a computer environment. Additionally, some of the limitations addressed in the argument are part of the abstract idea and not considered an additional element. The claims are unlike Example 41 since the claims are not improving the encryption technology but instead invoking the use of the technology. This does not amount to anything more than invoking the use of computers to carry out the abstract idea. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claim 30 is similar to Example 37 of the PEG which relates to relocation of icons on a GUI by automatically moving the most used icon to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon based on the determined amount of use. The claims are analogous by determining a ranking of service bundles based on user input and the healthcare service information records. In response to Applicant’s argument, the claim 30 is unlike Example 37 since in that example the additional elements amounted to a practical application. Here the limitation of determining a ranking of service bundles falls under the abstract idea and is not an additional elements. Any improvement to would be to the abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to a practical application. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that the other dependent claims recite other additional elements, such as, inputs via the GUI, further defining the machine learning algorithm whose output is presented on the GUI, defining the GUI via the web browser or web-based application. These claims further refine data transmission and improve the user interface and are therefore eligible. In response to Applicant’s argument, the additional elements amount to nothing more than invoking the use of computers to carry out the abstract idea and thus do not amount to a practical application. See the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Regarding Claim 10 – The claim recites “an access control mechanism configured to restrict access.” See MPEP 2181. The claim limitation uses the term “access control mechanism”. The “access control mechanism” is modified by functional language “configured to restrict access….” The “access control mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure, material or act for performing the claim. Therefore 112(f) is invoked. See Spec. [0140] which discusses the system implementing information control or information protection measures to restrict access to unauthorized users. From this paragraph it appears that the system is implementing control measures or a protocol to restrict access. Since there is no other mention of “access control mechanism”, Examiner is interpreting this paragraph to mean that the control mechanism is a protocol or programming carried out by the system.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-16, 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 10-16, 19-30 are drawn to an apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claim recite an abstract idea. For example, independent claim 10 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to communicate with a service offer database storing a plurality of healthcare service information records;
a display; and
a memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
presenting, via the display, a graphical user interface to a user, the graphical user interface configured to receive input from the user,
receiving, from the user via the graphical user interface, first input comprising a location of a healthcare service, a time of the healthcare service, and a healthcare preference of the user;
transmitting the first input received from the user via the graphical user interface using one or more of encryption and a secure network connection, wherein the first input is protected by an access control mechanism configured to restrict access to one or more portions of the first input by unauthorized parties;
providing an encrypted form of the first input as input to a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to:
determine, based on the encrypted form of the first input and based further on the plurality of healthcare service information records of the service offer database, a plurality of healthcare service bundles, each healthcare service bundle of the plurality comprising a respective plurality of healthcare services;
presenting the plurality of healthcare service bundles to the user via the graphical user interface;
receiving, from the user via the user graphical interface, second input comprising a selection, from the plurality of healthcare service bundles, of a healthcare service bundle for purchase;
determining an undiscounted real currency price for the selected healthcare service bundle;
determining a remaining insurance deductible amount for the user based on the user's insurance;
generating a discounted price for the selected healthcare service bundle based on the user's remaining insurance deductible amount; and
in response to receiving a payment of the discounted price:
generating a purchase data record corresponding to a unique confirmation number, wherein the purchase data record is selectively redeemable using the unique confirmation number to receive any particular service of the selected healthcare service bundle individually;
applying the payment to the user's remaining insurance deductible amount;
transmitting the unique confirmation number to the user.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor with a database for storing records, a display, memory to perform operations, presenting on a graphical user interface, machine learning algorithm, secure network, the limitations of this claim encompass coordinating the purchase healthcare services. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of commercial interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 11-16, 19-30 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
For example, independent claim 10 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to communicate with a service offer database storing a plurality of healthcare service information records; (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
a display; and (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
a memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
presenting, via the display, a graphical user interface to a user, the graphical user interface configured to receive input from the user, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, from the user via the graphical user interface, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) first input comprising a location of a healthcare service, a time of the healthcare service, and a healthcare preference of the user;
transmitting the first input received from the user via the graphical user interface using one or more of encryption and a secure network connection (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein the first input is protected by an access control mechanism configured to restrict access to one or more portions of the first input by unauthorized parties;
providing an encrypted form of the first input as input to a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
determine, based on the encrypted form of the first input and based further on the plurality of healthcare service information records of the service offer database, a plurality of healthcare service bundles, each healthcare service bundle of the plurality comprising a respective plurality of healthcare services;
presenting the plurality of healthcare service bundles to the user via the graphical user interface;
receiving, from the user via the user graphical interface, second input comprising a selection, from the plurality of healthcare service bundles, of a healthcare service bundle for purchase;
determining an undiscounted real currency price for the selected healthcare service bundle;
determining a remaining insurance deductible amount for the user based on the user's insurance;
generating a discounted price for the selected healthcare service bundle based on the user's remaining insurance deductible amount; and
in response to receiving a payment of the discounted price:
generating a purchase data record corresponding to a unique confirmation number, wherein the purchase data record is selectively redeemable using the unique confirmation number to receive any particular service of the selected healthcare service bundle individually;
applying the payment to the user's remaining insurance deductible amount;
transmitting the unique confirmation number to the user.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the processor with a database for storing records, a display, memory to perform operations, presenting on a graphical user interface, machine learning algorithm, secure network, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0041], [0045], [0051], [0087], [0088], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 11-16, 19-22, 29-30 recite additional limitations that further the abstract idea, claims 11, 14-16, 24-30 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 11-16, 19-30 recite additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the processor with a database for storing records, a display, memory to perform operations, presenting on a graphical user interface, machine learning algorithm, secure network, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. [0041], [0045], [0051], [0087], [0088]); using a processor coupled with a memory database to perform the steps, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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 10-16, 19-20, 22, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourfallah et al. (US 2012/0253852) in view of Shiraki et al. (JP 2013004048) and Ketchel, III et al. (US 2015/0294338).
Regarding claim 10, Pourfallah discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to communicate with a service offer database storing a plurality of healthcare service information records; and (Pourfallah [0386] discloses using the CPU comprising processors [0386] discloses using the CPU comprising processors with access to memory with instructions to perform operations [0035] In one implementation, RUAP may facilitate a user to engage a restricted-use account for the cost of eligible items. A restricted-use account may be a financial account having funds that can only be used for payment of approved products (e.g., prescription drugs, vaccine, food, etc.) and/or services (e.g., healthcare treatment, physical examination, etc.) [0071] the RUAP server 220 may incorporate information in the receipt into a transaction record 226 for storage)
a display; (Pourfallah [0051] the user may be viewing the website using a secure display)
a memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: (Pourfallah [0386] discloses using the CPU comprising processors with access to memory with instructions to perform operations)
presenting, via the display, a graphical user interface to a user, the graphical user interface configured to receive input from the user, (Pourfallah [0051] In some implementations, a user 121b may wish to checkout items stored in a virtual shopping cart on an online shopping website, e.g., 122b. For example, the user may be viewing the website using a secure display (e.g., that is part of a trusted computing device of the user). Upon indicating that the user wishes to checkout the items in the virtual shopping cart, the website may provide a QR code including information on the products in the virtual shopping cart and merchant information)
receiving, from the user via the graphical user interface, first input comprising a location of a healthcare service, a time of the healthcare service, and a healthcare preference of the user; (Pourfallah [0035] In one implementation, RUAP may facilitate a user to engage a restricted-use account for the cost of eligible items. A restricted-use account may be a financial account having funds that can only be used for payment of approved products (e.g., prescription drugs, vaccine, food, etc.) and/or services (e.g., healthcare treatment, physical examination, etc.) {physical examination is construed as a doctors appointment which would include a time for the examination}; [0048] In further implementations, the user's mobile wallet may intelligently recommend an account in the wallet for the instant payment. For example, the mobile wallet may detect the user's location at a healthcare provider 108 via its GPS component, and thus may recommend healthcare benefit accounts for user payment by highlighting the accounts "FSA" in and "HSA") [0278] Example criteria may include, for example, merchant category code (MCC), time of transaction, location of transaction, and/or the like [0305] As another example, a GUI element 1613 may, when activated by the user, present the user an application interface wherein the user may make more detailed adjustments to aspects of the payment mechanism (e.g., card utilized, anonymization/security preferences, etc.))
providing the first input as input to a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to: (Pourfallah [0080] The RUAP server 220 may then query a user database for user enrolled account, and the information retrieved by the RUAP from the online databases is processed by an optimization algorithm that operates on the rules in the retrieved information)
determine, based on the first input and based further on the plurality of healthcare service information records of the service offer database, a plurality of healthcare service bundles, each healthcare service bundle of the plurality comprising a respective plurality of healthcare services; (Pourfallah [0214] limitations on the type and quantity of healthcare goods and/or services type, including but not limited to: (i) pharmacy; (ii) vision; (iii) dental, (iv) psychological; (v) substance abuse rehabilitation; (vi) etc.; (e) limitation on payments payment to a certain type of merchant, including but not limited to: (i) `big-box` retailer; (ii) pharmacy retailer; (iii) physician sale of goods and services; (iv) etc.; (f) co-payments by insurance vehicle type; (g) etc.) [0090] In some implementations, the ad network server may provide information (e.g., via an API call) on such advertisements (e.g., merchant name, merchant ID, product name, product pricing information, related offers, etc.) to a RUAP server… display it for the user) [0265] In some implementations, the user may be provided with information about products, user settings, merchants, offers, etc. in list form (see, e.g., 1309) so that the user may better understand the user's purchasing options)
presenting the plurality of healthcare service bundles to the user via the graphical user interface; (Pourfallah [0265] the app may include interface elements to allow the user to switch back and forth between the product identification mode and product offer interface display screens (see, e.g., 1306), so that a user may accurately study deals available [0048] In further implementations, the user's mobile wallet may intelligently recommend an account in the wallet for the instant payment. For example, the mobile wallet may detect the user's location at a healthcare provider 108 via its GPS component, and thus may recommend healthcare benefit accounts for user payment by highlighting the accounts "FSA" in and "HSA")
receiving, from the user via the graphical user interface, second input comprising a selection, from the plurality of healthcare service bundles, of a healthcare service bundle for purchase (Pourfallah [0214] limitations on the type and quantity of healthcare goods and/or services type, including but not limited to: (i) pharmacy; (ii) vision; (iii) dental, (iv) psychological; (v) substance abuse rehabilitation; (vi) etc.; (e) limitation on payments payment to a certain type of merchant, including but not limited to: (i) `big-box` retailer; (ii) pharmacy retailer; (iii) physician sale of goods and services; (iv) etc.; (f) co-payments by insurance vehicle type; (g) etc. [0043] if the user selects "Yes" to proceed with payment with FSA, the user may need to split the purchase to pay for the eligible items 121a in the shopping cart with his FSA account and submit an amount of the drugs)
determining an undiscounted price for the selected healthcare service bundle; determining a remaining insurance deductible amount for the user based on the user's insurance; (Pourfallah [0215] a liquid asset that may be used to pay the balance due bill from the healthcare provider… a remaining deductible contribution amount to a healthcare-relates account amount for a specific year [0351] the open system payment processing network can be used by a patient (or agent thereof) to pay a healthcare service provider to who a balance due bill is owed as described above)
generating a discounted price for the selected healthcare service bundle based on the user's remaining insurance deductible amount; and in response to receiving a payment of the discounted price: (Pourfallah [0035] In one implementation, RUAP may facilitate a user to engage a restricted-use account for the cost of eligible items. A restricted-use account may be a financial account having funds that can only be used for payment of approved products (e.g., prescription drugs, vaccine, food, etc.) and/or services (e.g., healthcare treatment, physical examination, etc.)
generating a purchase data record corresponding to wherein the purchase data record is selectively redeemable to receive any particular service of the selected healthcare service bundle individually; (Pourfallah [0282] In further implementations, the RUAP may tag the store map view, e.g., 1421, to indicate purchase item categories that are potentially eligible for restricted-account usage. For example, products in the "grocery" area may be eligible for the user's food stamp/voucher usage; products in the "pharmacy" area may be eligible for various healthcare restricted-use accounts, e.g., FSA, HSA, etc.)
applying the payment to the user's remaining insurance deductible amount; and (Pourfallah [0215] a remaining deductible contribution amount to a healthcare-relates account amount for a specific year; (d) a government insurance prepaid account)
Pourfallah does not appear to disclose generating a unique confirmation number and transmitting the unique confirmation number to the user. However, Shiraki teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing to:
generating a unique confirmation number; transmitting the unique confirmation number to the user. (Shiraki pgs. 2-3 teaches generating a unique ID and also transmitting the unique ID in relation to the user’s purchase history)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pourfallah to incorporate generating a unique confirmation number; transmitting the unique confirmation number to the user as taught by Shiraki in order to associate a purchase history with unique ID’s rather than individual people. See Shiraki pg. 1.
Pourfallah-Shiraki does not appear to teach the following, however, Ketchel teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing to:
transmit the first input received from the user via the graphical user interface using one or more of encryption and a secure network connection, wherein the first input is protected by an access control mechanism configured to restrict access to one or more portions of the first input by unauthorized parties; an encrypted form of the first input (Ketchel [0044] Client applications 142 and application server 116 may be configured so that information transmitted between client systems 140 and server system 110 can be encrypted and sent over a secure network connection to protect, for example, patient privacy. [0122] Alternatively, the user interface implemented by account management service 131 may be configured to provide user interface controls for receiving an activation code to gain access to the ability to offer healthcare services for purchase within marketplace system 100 or may be configured to provide such access to the user in response to receiving a particular group or hospital affiliation code from the user. [0221] if certain type of information should not be accessible to a specific party (for example, a prescription product manufacturer or service provider) according to HIPAA requirements or other confidentiality concerns, system 100 can implement information-control or information-protection measures that ensure the specific party cannot access that type of information. As another example, to protect patient privacy, information transmitted over a computer or communication network, such as information transmitted between application server 116 and any client system 140 and electronic messages transmitted by server system 110, can be encrypted. In exemplary embodiments, system 100 can be HIPAA-validated to ensure privacy and comply with all requirements)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pourfallah-Shiraki, as modified above, to incorporate transmitting the first input received from the user via the graphical user interface using one or more of encryption and a secure network connection, wherein the first input is protected by an access control mechanism configured to restrict access to one or more portions of the first input by unauthorized parties, an encrypted form of the first input, as taught by Ketchel, in order to protect patient privacy and ensure only authorized users are accessing patient information. See Ketchel [0221].
Regarding claim 11, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the payment comprises virtual funds. (Pourfallah [0212] The mobile wallet component is programmed to access: (i) user-specific data and (ii) balances held by the user in multiple payment accounts issued to the user who is financially responsible for the healthcare service charges).
Regarding claim 12, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the payment comprises real currency. (Pourfallah [0036] The optimized payment is transmitted from the web enabled mobile computing device to the POS for further authorization processing of one or more currency amounts to be paid from respective accounts to satisfy the balance due bill).
Regarding claim 13, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the payment comprises promotional credit. (Pourfallah [0266] the app may allow the user to utilize other accounts (e.g., Google.TM. Checkout, Paypal.TM. account, etc.) to pay for the purchase transaction, e.g., 1316. In some implementations, the app may allow the user to utilize rewards points, airline miles, hotel points, electronic coupons, printed coupons (e.g., by capturing the printed coupons similar to the product identifier) etc., to pay for the purchase transaction, e.g., 1317-318).
Regarding claim 14, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Shiraki further teaches wherein the operations performed by the processor further comprise receiving the unique confirmation number with a request for the purchased service. (Shiraki pg. 4 teaches receiving the unique ID presented with purchase tendencies).
Regarding claim 15, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the operations performed by the processor further comprise determining a purchase data record redemption status. (Pourfallah [0635] aspects of the RUAP may be adapted for various card management and secured payment processing, offer/coupon distribution and redemption, social payment, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 16, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the operations performed by the processor further comprise indicating the purchase data record has been redeemed for the purchased service. (Pourfallah [0635] aspects of the RUAP may be adapted for various card management and secured payment processing, offer/coupon distribution and redemption, social payment, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 19, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the selected healthcare service bundle comprises a primary service and a secondary service associated with the primary service. (Pourfallah [0214] limitations on the type and quantity of healthcare goods and/or services type, including but not limited to: (i) pharmacy; (ii) vision; (iii) dental, (iv) psychological; (v) substance abuse rehabilitation; (vi) etc.; (e) limitation on payments payment to a certain type of merchant, including but not limited to: (i) `big-box` retailer; (ii) pharmacy retailer; (iii) physician sale of goods and services; (iv) etc.; (f) co-payments by insurance vehicle type; (g) etc.).
Regarding claim 20, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 19, additionally Pourfallah discloses wherein the payment comprises payment for the secondary service. (Pourfallah [0073] Another database can contain an insurance rule pertaining to payment for the healthcare to the user. Other online databases accessible by the RUAP to retrieve information can contain data specific to the user and an insured entity financially responsible for the user, as well as currency balances in each of one or more accounts respectively issued by an issuer).
Regarding claim 22, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and Pourfallah further discloses wherein the first input further comprises a healthcare facility. (Pourfallah [0108] In another example, the RUAP server may retrieve user enrolled restricted-use accounts based on merchant characteristics, e.g., FSA/HSA and other healthcare related restricted-use accounts if the merchant is a hospital, physician office, dental office, and/or the like; food stamp, etc., if the merchant is a grocery store, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 27, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the graphical user interface is accessible via a web browser. (Pourfallah [0051] the user may be viewing the website using a secure display).
Regarding claim 28, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a web- based application. (Pourfallah [0265] the app may include interface elements to allow the user to switch back and forth between the product identification mode and product offer interface display screens (see, e.g., 1306), so that a user may accurately study deals available).
Regarding claim 29, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein: the processor is further configured to communicate with a data store that comprises the service offer database; the data store further comprises a cost adjustment database; and said generating the discounted price comprises generating the discounted price based on the cost adjustment database. (Pourfallah [0282] In further implementations, the RUAP may tag the store map view, e.g., 1421, to indicate purchase item categories that are potentially eligible for restricted-account usage. For example, products in the "grocery" area may be eligible for the user's food stamp/voucher usage; products in the "pharmacy" area may be eligible for various healthcare restricted-use accounts, e.g., FSA, HSA, etc.).
Regarding claim 30, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and Ketchel further teaches wherein the machine learning algorithm determines a ranking of the plurality of healthcare service bundles based on the encrypted form of the first input and based further on the plurality of healthcare service information records of the service offer database, and wherein the presenting of the plurality of healthcare service bundles via the graphical user interface is based on the ranking. (Ketchel [0069] FIG. 3B is a screen shot illustrating an example of a GUI provided by a search result listing page 310 for customer portal 120 that presents a list of providers offering the service specified within search entry field 304 within a default search radius (for example, 50 miles) of the location specified within location entry field 306 returned in the search conducted by navigation and search service 124. In the illustrated example, search result listing page 310 includes a result listing section 311, a result filtering section 316, and a result sorting section 318. Result listing section 311 presents an entry for each offered service for which a respective information record is maintained within service offer database 114h that matches the specified search criteria… Result sorting section 318 provides user interface controls that can be accessed by a user to direct navigation and search service 124 to order the list of entries for offered services within result listing section 311 according to a specified criteria (for example, according to the price for purchasing the offered service via server system 110 or the distance between the location of the offered service and the location specified within location entry field 306)).
Claims 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel and Macoviak et al. (CA 3093789).
Regarding claim 21, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Macoviak teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the first input further comprises a type of medical condition. (Macoviak [0195] input includes findings from physical examinations and lab tests, the assessment of a subject's condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel, as modified above, to incorporate wherein the first input further comprises a type of medical condition in order to promote adequate access to healthcare to individuals. See Macoviak [0002].
Regarding claim 23, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Macoviak teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the first input further comprises a pricing parameter. (Macoviak [0447] 2: Select desired cost-sampling parameters). The motivations to combine the references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 24, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Macoviak teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises an artificial neural network. (Macoviak [0181] A neural network). The motivations to combine the references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 25, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Macoviak teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a Bayesian network. (Macoviak [0195]A Bayesian model). The motivations to combine the references was discussed above and is incorporated herein.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel and So et al. (US 20180357714).
Regarding claim 26, Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, So teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a data fusion engine. (So [0147] the data fusion model implements algorithms for anonymization of the borrower. The data fusion model removes PII from borrower data associated with the borrower. This ensures that privacy is not violated but helps learn salient features that characterize payment delinquency risks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pourfallah-Shiraki-Ketchel, as modified above, to incorporate wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a data fusion engine in order to learn pertinent information about the user while maintaining their privacy. See So [0147].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686