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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting in Section II that “the rejected claims involve a process and/or system comprising a computer arranged to perform a sequence of operations designed to improve the underlying functionality of computing systems, in particular online platforms such as healthcare platforms, healthcare databases (e.g., disparate and/or separate databases), and other platforms where excess resources are often spent on search and recommendation functions.” Applicant cites to the decision in Enfish, LLC, asserting that “similar to the claims in Enfish, the claims at hand are not directed to an abstract idea because the focus of the claims is on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, and not merely an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool,” and that “aspects of the disclosure address challenges "for referring patients to other medical professionals" by using a computer configured to provide a unique computer-centric solution to "many considerations that should be addressed when making a referral."” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Enfish the claims were directed to an improvement to computer functionality because the specifically claimed database structure allowed faster searching of data and more flexibility in configuring the database, and, importantly, these benefits and the manner in which the claimed elements yielded them were specifically described in the disclosure of the application. Merely using computers to perform functions in order to “address challenges” in a field or to process data is not analogous to the improvement in computer functionality described by the Court in Enfish. For example, while the present claims recite a database, that database is only recited at a high level of generality as used to store tables of data. The processor recited in claim 8 is likewise only recited at a high level of generality as “operative to” perform the subsequent data comparison and processing steps.
Additionally the recitation of converting searchable to a search optimized database format is only recited at a high level of generality, and is disclosed broadly in the specification as including generalized formatting steps such as formatting the data for partial string searches, case variations, special character searching, or simply formatting data such as by “formatting phone numbers, zip codes, and other non-textual data, and formatting data to limit common words, short words, or other character sequences which may confuse search results” (see paragraph 44).
With respect to Applicant’s statement that “storage resources that would otherwise be necessary to store individual recommendations or referrals for every patient and every referral are avoided, and underlying functions of a computing system involved in searching are improved,” this assertion lacks both support in the disclosure as-filed and nexus with the actual limitations of the claims. Examiner additionally notes, that the rejection does not assert that the features of claim 1 constitute a mental process or are performed in the human mind.
Applicant next argues that the claims provide particular technical benefits “that are inherent in the independent claims when interpreted in light of the originally filed specification, as would be understood by One of Ordinary Skill in the Art of Healthcare Referrals and Computer Systems,” including “the directory provides a common search engine for patients and providers, with details relevant to both; providers can be added as contacts, with the ability to add customized per-account data such as phones, custom notes, etc.; multiple filters are available, including practitioner specialty, city, proximity; the directory provides the ability to mark providers as favorites, as well as remembering previously used filters; the network tier system allows the provider records to be segmented as preferred by the user,” and others. However, Examiner notes that none of the asserted “technical benefits” listed are recited in the claim, and disagrees that any would be “inherent” in the subject matter within independent claims as argued. Furthermore, many of the asserted improvements and functionalities are not even present in the disclosure of the present application. For example, the present disclosure does not provide any description of scoring provider results “with a custom algorithm that is a combination of an arbitrary number of objective data points from the provider (average referral wait time, provider reviews, network affiliation, etc.) with subjective user data (per-account scoring weights, user preferences like favorites, etc.) as well as contextual data (the patient insurance, patient/provider location, etc.) in real time.” Likewise, neither the claims nor the disclosure contain any mention of an algorithm which dynamically adjusts or distributes weights in connection with the referral data, ranking providers, or performing the other argued functions.
Examiner therefore maintains that the claims do not recite elements which integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1, 8, and 15 are withdrawn based on the amendment filed 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are drawn to a method, claims 8, 9, and 12-14 are drawn to a system, and claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
receiving referral data and National Provider Identifier (NPI) data;
creating tables that include a practitioner table, an organization table, a join table, and an intermediary table;
importing the referral data and the NPI data into the intermediary table;
processing an NPI practitioner record, wherein the processing an NPI practitioner record includes;
comparing fields in the intermediary table to the practitioner table;
determining if data in the practitioner table has changed;
if the data in the practitioner table has changed, updating the data in the practitioner table;
if the data in the practitioner table has not changed determining if a record associated with the NPI practitioner record exists;
if the record does not exist, adding a new record to the practitioner table; and
organizing the records into smaller data sets to facilitate later processing;
processing an NPI organizational record, wherein the processing the NPI organizational record includes;
comparing the fields in the intermediary table to the fields in the organization table;
determining if data in the organization table has changed;
if the data in the organization table has changed updating the data;
if the data in the organization table has not changed determining whether a record associated with the NPI practitioner record exists and if the record does not exist adding a new record to the organization table; and
organizing the records into data sets;
joining the practitioner record to the organization table; and
processing referral data.
These steps constitute a form of managing personal behavior and therefore fall within the scope of an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of organizing referral information as well as information related to healthcare practitioners and organizations. The collection and organization of records related to such entities is, and can be, performed by individuals as part of medical record-keeping, including the comparison of fields within records, updating of records, and organizing of records.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and also recite an abstract idea based on the same analysis.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a) a database recited as including the practitioner table, organization table, join table, and intermediary table, and b) a database search interface recited as having associated fields of the practitioner table and organization table and as being presented to a user.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a) a processor recited as operative to perform the subsequent data processing functions, b) a database recited as including the practitioner table, organization table, join table, and intermediary table, and c) a database search interface recited as having associated fields of the practitioner table and organization table and as being presented to a user.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a) a non-transitory computer readable medium recited as including “instructions of” the subsequent data processing functions, b) a database recited as including the practitioner table, organization table, join table, and intermediary table, and c) a database search interface recited as having associated fields of the practitioner table and organization table and as being presented to a user.
Paragraphs 34 and 36 of the specification describe databases in terms of the data contained as well as the inclusion of tables. However, no further description of the database structure itself is provided. The database is construed as encompassing generic computer databases.
Paragraphs 49 and 50 describe the database search interface as a user interface used to receive a search input from a user, and as including “any suitable user interface.” Examiner notes that there is no express disclosure of what constitutes fields of the practitioner table and organization table being “associated with” the database search interface. Based on paragraphs 49 and 50 the fields being “associated with” the database search interface is construed as being accessible through the interface. The database search interface and association with the recited table fields is therefore construed as encompassing generic user interface elements.
Paragraphs 24, 25, and 27 describe a memory used to store computer-executable instructions and a processor used to execute the instructions, where the processor includes a CPU and “any number of suitable auxiliary processors or microprocessors.” The processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium are construed as each encompassing generic computing elements.
Each of the above elements only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. For example, the processor is only recited at a high level of generality as “operative to” perform the subsequent functions, while the database is likewise only recited at a high level of generality as including the various tables. The database search interface is likewise only recited at a high level of generality as presented to the user and as having associated fields of the practitioner table and organization table. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition to the elements above, claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the additional elements of a) converting searchable fields of the practitioner table and associated with a database search interface to a search optimized database format, b) converting the organization table to include searchable fields associated with the database search interface in an optimized database format, and c) presenting the database search interface to a user.
However, these elements only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Converting table fields to searchable fields in an “optimized database format” and “associated” with a database search interface is only nominally or tangentially related to the core claimed concept of importing and processing referral data, NPI practitioner records, and NPI organizational records by storing the imported data in a table and comparing it to existing records in order to update records or create new ones. Examiner notes paragraph 44 of the specification describing a search optimized database format as including generalized formatting steps such as formatting the data for partial string searches, case variations, special character searching, or simply formatting data such as by “formatting phone numbers, zip codes, and other non-textual data, and formatting data to limit common words, short words, or other character sequences which may confuse search results.” As noted above, the fields being “associated with” a database search interface is only disclosed in terms of the fields being searchable via the interface. Furthermore, presenting the database search interface is only recited at a high level of generality and the interface is not used as part of any further function within the claims.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 8, and 15 only recite the database, database search interface, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 each further recite the additional elements of a) converting searchable fields of the practitioner table and associated with a database search interface to a search optimized database format, b) converting the organization table to include searchable fields associated with the database search interface in an optimized database format, and c) presenting the database search interface to a user.
As set out above however, these elements only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Converting table fields to searchable fields in an “optimized database format” and “associated” with a database search interface is only nominally or tangentially related to the core claimed concept of importing and processing referral data, NPI practitioner records, and NPI organizational records by storing the imported data in a table and comparing it to existing records in order to update records or create new ones. Examiner notes paragraph 44 of the specification describing a search optimized database format as including generalized formatting steps such as formatting the data for partial string searches, case variations, special character searching, or simply formatting data such as by “formatting phone numbers, zip codes, and other non-textual data, and formatting data to limit common words, short words, or other character sequences which may confuse search results.” As noted above, the fields being “associated with” a database search interface is only disclosed in terms of the fields being searchable via the interface. Furthermore, presenting the database search interface is only recited at a high level of generality and the interface is not used as part of any further function within the claims.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, the elements of a) converting searchable fields of the practitioner table and associated with a database search interface to a search optimized database format, b) converting the organization table to include searchable fields associated with the database search interface in an optimized database format, and c) presenting the database search interface to a user further constitute well-understood routine and conventional activity. Converting table fields to searchable fields in an “optimized database format” constitute a form of electronic record keeping and are claimed in a generic manner as well as being insignificant extra-solution activity.
Presenting the database search interface to a user constitutes a form of receiving or transmitting data over a network, such as the interface data, as well as being related to electronic recordkeeping. As noted above, this element is also recited only as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
Depending Claims
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite following the importing the referral data and the NPI data into the intermediary table, processing an NPI deactivation record. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 5 recites wherein the joining practitioner records to the organization table includes: comparing data in the practitioner table with data in the organization table such that each practitioner is matched with an organization and each organization is matched with all of the practitioners; determining whether the data in the practitioner table matches the data in the organization table; and creating a joins table that associates a practitioner with an organization. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite wherein the processing referral data includes: grouping the referral data to identify sending and receiving providers; grouping data by a file to associate networks of sending and receiving providers; grouping data by fields to associate networks of sending and receiving organization; aggregating data by filtering values and sum data for each filter value; aggregating data by providers and summing referral counts for each sending and receiving provider; and aggregating data by organizations and sum referral counts for each sending and receiving organization. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 7 and 14 recite wherein the referral data includes Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) referral data. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 12 and 19 recite wherein the joining practitioner records to the organization table includes: comparing data in the practitioner table with data in the organization table; determining whether the data in the practitioner table matches the data in the organization table; and creating a joins table that associates a practitioner with an organization. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "the records" in line 17, line 18, and line 18 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it recites a plurality of records, while the only prior recitation of records in the claims is the singular “NPI practitioner record” and “a record,” such as in lines 6 and 12 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear what plurality of records is being referenced.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "the records" in line 29, line 31, and line 30 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it recites a plurality of records, while the claims only previously recite the singular “NPI organizational record” and “a record,” such as in lines 18 and 24 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear what plurality of records is being referenced.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are indefinite because Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the respective claims based on the recitation of “converting searchable fields of the practitioner table and associated with a database search interface to a search optimized database format.” Specifically, the portion reciting “and associated with a database search interface” contains at least one grammatical error when read in combination with the rest of the limitation, which makes it unclear what relation the recited association has with the converting function. Examiner requests that Applicant clarify the intended meaning and language of the claims.
The term “smaller data sets” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the respective claims indefinite. The term “smaller” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is especially true given that the claims and disclosure do not define or describe initial sizes of data sets corresponding to the records in order to judge what constitutes “smaller data sets.” For example, it is not clear whether the “smaller data sets” are smaller than all of the records combined, smaller than any individual record, or a different size altogether. This is compounded by the lack of antecedent basis or definition of what constitutes “the records” in each of the above claims.
Claims 2-9, 10-14, and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are indefinite because Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims based on the recitation of “grouping data by a file to associate networks of sending and receiving providers” in line 4 of each claim. It is not clear what function is being described by grouping “by a file” given that none of the claims previously recite any files or types of files.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The previous rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 USC 112(d) is moot based on cancelation of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682