Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on March 11, 2026 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in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated November 26, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claim 14 is cancelled by applicant. Claim 24 is added by the applicant. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 21-24 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
5. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claim 19), a machine (claims 1-7, 9, and 21-24) and a manufacture (claims 10-13 and 15-17); where the machine and the manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving an indication of a receipt of a claim document [[at the claims management system]];
in response to receiving the indication, identifying a packet profile, wherein the packet profile comprises [[a data structure]] including packet profile attributes, where one or more packet profile attributes identify a set of required documents for a claim;
generating a packet based on the packet profile and the claim document, wherein the packet comprises an instance of the packet profile and inherits the packet profile attributes of the packet profile;
in response to receiving a particular required document in the set of required documents, updating the packet to indicate that the particular required document has been received,
wherein the packet indicates that one or more required documents, in the set of required documents, that are different than the particular required document, have not been received.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., insurance -- here, managing documents corresponding to an insurance claim).
Step 2A, Prong 2
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., an apparatus comprising one or more processors a memory storing instructions, a claims management system, a data structure, and a user interface). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
causing to be displayed, in a user interface, multiple claim data that indicates a plurality of claim attributes of each claim in a plurality of claims that includes the claim, wherein the plurality of claim attributes include two or more of a priority of each claim of the plurality of claims, an SLA date of each claim of the plurality of claims, a stage of the claim, a status of each claim of the plurality of claims, or a geographic region of each claim of the plurality of claims.
This limitation simply states that various information is displayed via a user interface. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the information is displayed. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
storing the packet and the claim document, wherein the stored packet includes data that associates, with the packet, the storage of the claim document.
This limitation simply states that the system stores information regarding the packet and the claim document. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the information is stored. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., an apparatus comprising one or more processors a memory storing instructions, a claims management system, a data structure, and a user interface), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (See also e.g., applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 89-97).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely outputting/displaying data) has been reevaluated under Step 2B:
causing to be displayed, in a user interface, multiple claim data that indicates a plurality of claim attributes of each claim in a plurality of claims that includes the claim, wherein the plurality of claim attributes include two or more of a priority of each claim of the plurality of claims, an SLA date of each claim of the plurality of claims, a stage of the claim, a status of each claim of the plurality of claims, or a geographic region of each claim of the plurality of claims.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely storing data) has been reevaluated under Step 2B:
storing the packet and the claim document, wherein the stored packet includes data that associates, with the packet, the storage of the claim document.
In view of the requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely storing data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
9. Independent claims 10 and 19 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 10 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 10 and 1 is that claim 10 is drafted as a storage media rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 10 recites generic computer components (e.g., one or more storage media, one or more processors, a claims management system, a data structure, and a user interface) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 10, claim 10 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Claim 19 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 19 and 1 is that claim 19 is drafted as a method rather than as a system.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the following limitations that are not recited in claim 1:
wherein the first packet profile is associated with a first set of one or more rules and the second packet profile is associated with a second set of one or more rules that are not associated with the first packet profile;
based on the packet being generated based on the first packet profile, processing the first set of one or more rules and not the second set of one or more rules, wherein the first set of one or more rules are based on a first regulatory jurisdiction and the second set of one or more rules are based on a second regulatory jurisdiction that is different than the first regulatory jurisdiction.
These limitations simply state that the packet profiles are associated with rule sets, and that the rule sets correspond to regulatory jurisdictions. Such limitations simply further refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., processing a set of one or more rules based on the generated packet profile) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above.
Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 10 recites generic computer components (e.g., a claims management system, a data structure, and a user interface) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since a similar analysis should be used for claims 1 and 19, claim 19 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
10. Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 21-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2 and 11 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., identifying the packet profile from a plurality of packet profiles based on an identified claim type) that falls under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, and 13 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., processing a set of rules corresponding to the selected packet profile, wherein the rules correspond to a regulatory jurisdiction or a claim type) that falls under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitations, “determining, based on the packet, whether certain data associated with the packet is missing; receiving, in the second user interface, user selection of the missing certain data; and in response to receiving user selection of the missing certain data, causing a message to be transmitted to a computing device or account of an entity that is different than the entity that operates the apparatus, wherein the message indicates that the certain data is missing and invites the entity to provide the certain data.” These limitations simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., identifying missing data associated with the packet, receiving user input regarding the missing data, and requesting the missing data form an entity) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Additionally, claim 5 recites the limitation, “causing to be displayed, in a second user interface, in response to determining whether certain data associated with the packet is missing, an indication of the missing certain data.” This limitation simply states that the system displays an indication of the missing data. However, the claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how the indication is displayed. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claims 6 and 15 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., identifying missing data associated with the packet, and requesting the missing data form an entity) that falls under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 7 and 16 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., receiving and storing data corresponding to a second document, and updating the packet to indicate that a second required document has not been received) that falls under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claim 9 simply provides further definition to the process of receiving the document recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the document is received via email, a web portal, or scanning a physical document does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the medium for receiving the document.
Claim 17 simply refines the abstract idea because it recites process steps (e.g., receiving a second document, and storing data that indicates the second document is an ancillary document in the packet) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely facilitating a transaction, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claim 21 simply states that the system displays various information in a second graphical user interface. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the information is displayed. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In view of the requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim 22 simply states that the system displays hazard data indicating a potential problem with the one or more documents, and that the hazard data may be viewed in response to the user selecting the hazard data. However, simply stating that the hazard data may be viewed in in a separate interface does not amount to an improvement to graphical user interface technology. The limitations do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the hazard data is displayed and/or how the interaction between the user and the graphical user interface facilitates processing of the claim documents. Similarly, simply stating that the user interface receives input from the user, and updates the display based on the input, does not provide any indication of a technical improvement regarding the functionality of the user interface. Rather, this simply describes a process for utilizing a generic user interface to display updated information. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In view of the requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim 23 simply states that the system utilizes a machine learning model to generate the hazard data. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the machine learning model is trained and/or functions to generate/output the hazard data. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying a generic machine learning model to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 24 recites the limitation, “wherein causing to be displayed comprises causing to be displayed, in the user interface of an enterprise user, the multiple claim data, wherein the each claim pertains to a different claimant.” This limitation simply provides further description regarding the type of information displayed by the user interface. However, this claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how the information is displayed. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
12. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110320502) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20010041993) and Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Marin teaches:
An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause, automatically, in a claims management system (See at least Paragraph 67: Describes a system for generating a checklist object for a car insurance claim. The checklist object specifies the content objects [e.g., documents] required to start processing a claim. The system comprises a processor and memory):
receiving an indication of a receipt of a claim document at the claims management system (See at least Paragraph 51: The content management system receives an indication that a new content object has been created [i.e., a required document has been received]);
[[in response to receiving the indication]], identifying a packet profile, wherein the packet profile comprises a data structure including packet profile attributes, where one or more packet profile attributes identify a set of required documents for a claim (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system identifies a checklist object [i.e., a packet profile] that includes a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim [i.e., packet profile attributes]. Examiner's Note: Marin does not explicitly teach that the checklist object is identified in response to receiving the content object. Rather, as described above, Marin teaches that the checklist object is generated before the various required documents are received. However, this limitation is taught by Campbell as described below);
generating a packet based on the packet profile and the claim document, wherein the packet comprises an instance of the packet profile and inherits the packet profile attributes of the packet profile (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system generates a car insurance claim instance [i.e., a packet] containing the checklist object. The insurance claim instance contains various metadata identifying the particular claim and customer associated with the claim);
storing the packet and the claim document, wherein the stored packet includes data that associates, with the packet, the storage of the claim document (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system stores the documents associated with the claim processing system, and the checklist object assists with collection of a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim. The content management system may also store "link objects" which create relationships between, for example, documents and checklist objects [i.e., data that associates the documents with the packets; See Paragraph 25]);
in response to receiving a particular required document in the set of required documents, updating the packet to indicate that the particular required document has been received (See at least Paragraph 51: When the content object is determined to fulfill the one or more placeholders, the placeholder is marked as fulfilled [i.e., the placeholder within the checklist object is marked as "received"]),
wherein the packet indicates that one or more required documents, in the set of required documents, that are different than the particular required document, have not been received (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: Each placeholder may have an associated flag indicating whether it has been received. Once a content object corresponding to the placeholder is received, it is marked/flagged as received [also see Figure 3]. In other words, placeholders that have not yet received a document are indicated as not having received a document).
Regarding Claim 1, Marin does not explicitly teach, but Campbell, however, does teach:
in response to receiving the indication, identifying a packet profile… (See at least Paragraph 33: Describes a system for managing insurance claims. As the requested documents are received by the document receiving, storage, and maintenance module, they are stored in the claimant's insurance claim file that is created by the insurance claim creation module. In other words, the claim file is created in response to receiving the documents [also see Figure 4B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin and Campbell in order to provide a system wherein an insurance carrier can initiate, document, value, and negotiate the resolution of an insurance claim in a timely manner while minimizing the expenses associated therewith (Campbell: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Marin and Campbell does not explicitly teach, but Cochran, however, does teach:
causing to be displayed, in a user interface, multiple claim data that indicates a plurality of claim attributes of each claim in a plurality of claims that includes the claim, wherein the plurality of claim attributes include two or more of a priority of each claim of the plurality of claims, an SLA date of each claim of the plurality of claims, a stage of the claim, a status of each claim of the plurality of claims, or a geographic region of each claim of the plurality of claims (See at least Figure 8b: Shows a graphical user interface for displaying information corresponding to a plurality of claims. The interface may display a status of the claim and a location of the loss [i.e., a geographic region of each claim]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran in order to provide an automated system to reliably, objectively, consistently, and efficiently route, assign and manage insurance claims (Cochran: Col. 2, Line 37 – Col. 3, Line 12).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Marin does not explicitly teach, but Campbell, however, does teach:
receiving the claim document through email, through a web portal, or based on scanning a physical document that was received as physical mail (See at least Paragraph 33: The claimant can email or physically mail the documents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin and Campbell in order to provide a system wherein an insurance carrier can initiate, document, value, and negotiate the resolution of an insurance claim in a timely manner while minimizing the expenses associated therewith (Campbell: Paragraph 6).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Marin teaches:
One or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause, in a claims management system (See at least Paragraph 67: Describes a system for generating a checklist object for a car insurance claim. The checklist object specifies the content objects [e.g., documents] required to start processing a claim. The system comprises a processor and memory):
receiving an indication of a receipt of a claim document at the claims management system (See at least Paragraph 51: The content management system receives an indication that a new content object has been created [i.e., a required document has been received]);
[[in response to receiving the indication]], identifying a packet profile, wherein the packet profile comprises a data structure including packet profile attributes, where one or more packet profile attributes identify a set of required documents for a claim (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system identifies a checklist object [i.e., a packet profile] that includes a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim [i.e., packet profile attributes]. Examiner's Note: Marin does not explicitly teach that the checklist object is identified in response to receiving the content object. Rather, as described above, Marin teaches that the checklist object is generated before the various required documents are received. However, this limitation is taught by Campbell as described below);
generating a packet based on the packet profile and the claim document, wherein the packet profile comprises an instance of the packet profile and inherits the packet profile attributes of the packet profile (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system generates a car insurance claim instance [i.e., a packet] containing the checklist object. The insurance claim instance contains various metadata identifying the particular claim and customer associated with the claim.);
storing the packet and the claim document, wherein the stored packet includes data that associates, with the packet, the storage of the claim document (See at least Paragraph 41: The content management system stores the documents associated with the claim processing system, and the checklist object assists with collection of a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim. The content management system may also store "link objects" which create relationships between, for example, documents and checklist objects [i.e., data that associates the documents with the packets; See Paragraph 25]);
in response to receiving a particular required document in the set of required documents, updating the packet to indicate that the particular required document has been received (See at least Paragraph 51: When the content object is determined to fulfill the one or more placeholders, the placeholder is marked as fulfilled [i.e., the placeholder within the checklist object is marked as "received"]),
wherein the packet indicates that one or more required documents, in the set of required documents, that are different than the particular required document, have not been received (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: Each placeholder may have an associated flag indicating whether it has been received. Once a content object corresponding to the placeholder is received, it is marked/flagged as received [also see Figure 3]. In other words, placeholders that have not yet received a document are indicated as not having received a document).
Regarding Claim 10, Marin does not explicitly teach, but Campbell, however, does teach:
in response to receiving the indication, identifying a packet profile… (See at least Paragraph 33: Describes a system for managing insurance claims. As the requested documents are received by the document receiving, storage, and maintenance module, they are stored in the claimant's insurance claim file that is created by the insurance claim creation module. In other words, the claim file is created in response to receiving the documents [also see Figure 4B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin and Campbell in order to provide a system wherein an insurance carrier can initiate, document, value, and negotiate the resolution of an insurance claim in a timely manner while minimizing the expenses associated therewith (Campbell: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Marin and Campbell does not explicitly teach, but Cochran, however, does teach:
causing to be displayed, in a user interface, multiple claim data that indicates a plurality of claim attributes of each claim in a plurality of claims that includes the claim, wherein the plurality of claim attributes include two or more of a priority of each claim of the plurality of claims, an SLA date of each claim of the plurality of claims, a stage of the claim, a status of each claim of the plurality of claims, or a geographic region of each claim of the plurality of claims (See at least Figure 8b: Shows a graphical user interface for displaying information corresponding to a plurality of claims. The interface may display a status of the claim and a location of the loss [i.e., a geographic region of each claim]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran in order to provide an automated system to reliably, objectively, consistently, and efficiently route, assign and manage insurance claims (Cochran: Col. 2, Line 37 – Col. 3, Line 12).
Claim 24
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Marin and Campbell does not explicitly teach, but Cochran, however, does teach:
wherein causing to be displayed comprises causing to be displayed, in the user interface of an enterprise user, the multiple claim data, wherein the each claim pertains to a different claimant (See at least Figure 8b: Shows a graphical user interface for displaying information corresponding to a plurality of claims. The interface may display claims associated with different insured individuals [i.e., claimants]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran in order to provide an automated system to reliably, objectively, consistently, and efficiently route, assign and manage insurance claims (Cochran: Col. 2, Line 37 – Col. 3, Line 12).
13. Claims 2, 3, 11-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110320502) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20010041993) and Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658), and in further view of Parida (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20090070135).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: in response to receiving the indication, identifying a claim type, from among a plurality of claim types (See at least Paragraph 16: Describes a system for managing clinical documents for claims processing. The information associated with the invoice may include a type of procedure performed [i.e., a type of claim]);
wherein each claim type of the plurality of claim types is associated with a different packet profile of a plurality of packet profiles (See at least Paragraphs 16 and 17: The system may identify a set documents required for submission of the claim. The required documents may be determined based on a set of rules. The set of rules may be based on the type of procedure performed);
wherein a first packet profile in the plurality of packet profiles identifies a first set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 17: For a first procedure, the set of rules may require a first set of documents [e.g., files A, B, and C]);
wherein a second packet profile in the plurality of packet profiles identifies a second set of required documents that is different than the first set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 17: For a second procedure, the set of rules may require a second set of documents [e.g., Files D, E, and F]);
wherein identifying the packet profile comprises identifying the packet profile, from among the plurality of packet profiles, based on the claim type (See at least Paragraph 17: As discussed above, the set of required documents is determined based on the procedure performed [i.e., the claim type]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein: the packet profile is a first packet profile; the plurality of packet profiles includes the first packet profile and a second packet profile that is different than the first packet profile (See at least Paragraphs 16 and 17: The system may identify a set documents required for submission of the claim [i.e., a packet profile]. The required documents may be determined based on a set of rules. The set of rules may be based on the type of procedure performed. For example, a first set of documents may correspond to a first procedure and a second set of documents may correspond to a second procedure);
the first packet profile is associated with a first set of one or more rules and the second packet profile is associated with a second set of one or more rules that are not associated with the first packet profile (See at least Paragraph 17: The required documents may be determined by a set of rules corresponding to the first and second type of procedure);
the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: based on the packet being generated based on the first packet profile, processing the first set of one or more rules and not the second set of one or more rules (See at least Paragraph 17: If the procedure type is determined to be the first procedue type, the documents required for the first procedure type are obtained [i.e., the documents associated with procedure A are obtained rather than the documents associated with procedure B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: in response to receiving the indication, identifying a claim type, from among a plurality of claim types (See at least Paragraph 16: Describes a system for managing clinical documents for claims processing. The information associated with the invoice may include a type of procedure performed [i.e., a type of claim]);
wherein each claim type of the plurality of claim types is associated with a different packet profile of a plurality of packet profiles (See at least Paragraphs 16 and 17: The system may identify a set documents required for submission of the claim. The required documents may be determined based on a set of rules. The set of rules may be based on the type of procedure performed);
wherein a first packet profile in the plurality of packet profiles identifies a first set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 17: For a first procedure, the set of rules may require a first set of documents [e.g., files A, B, and C]);
wherein a second packet profile in the plurality of packet profiles identifies a second set of required documents that is different than the first set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 17: For a second procedure, the set of rules may require a second set of documents [e.g., Files D, E, and F]);
wherein identifying the packet profile comprises identifying the packet profile, from among the plurality of packet profiles, based on the claim type (See at least Paragraph 17: As discussed above, the set of required documents is determined based on the procedure performed [i.e., the claim type]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein: the packet profile is a first packet profile; a plurality of packet profiles includes the first packet profile and a second packet profile that is different than the first packet profile (See at least Paragraphs 16 and 17: The system may identify a set documents required for submission of the claim [i.e., a packet profile]. The required documents may be determined based on a set of rules. The set of rules may be based on the type of procedure performed. For example, a first set of documents may correspond to a first procedure and a second set of documents may correspond to a second procedure);
the first packet profile is associated with a first set of one or more rules and the second packet profile is associated with a second set of one or more rules that are not associated with the first packet profile (See at least Paragraph 17: The required documents may be determined by a set of rules corresponding to the first and second type of procedure);
the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: based on the packet being generated based on the first packet profile, processing the first set of one or more rules and not the second set of one or more rules (See at least Paragraph 17: If the procedure type is determined to be the first procedue type, the documents required for the first procedure type are obtained [i.e., the documents associated with procedure A are obtained rather than the documents associated with procedure B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein: the first set of one or more rules are based on a first regulatory jurisdiction and the second set of one or more rules are based on a second regulatory jurisdiction that is different than the first regulatory jurisdiction; or the first set of one or more rules are based on the first packet profile being associated with a first type of claim and the second set of one or more rules are based on the second packet profile being associated with a second type of claim that is different than the first type of claim (See at least Paragraphs 16 and 17: The system may identify a set documents required for submission of the claim. The required documents may be determined based on a set of rules. The set of rules may be based on the type of procedure performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Feit, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4).
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Parida, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: causing to be displayed, in a second user interface, claim data that indicates a plurality of documents of the claim and a second plurality of attributes of the claim wherein the second plurality of attributes include two or more of a document type of each document in the plurality of documents, a receipt date of each document in the plurality of documents, a status of each document in the plurality of documents, a source of each document in the plurality of documents, or a name of a submitter of each document of the plurality of documents (See at least Paragraph 25 and Figure 5: A user interface may be displayed to a viewer. The interface comprises various information corresponding to a plurality of documents associated with an insurance claim, such as a document type [i.e., a document type of each document] and an author name [i.e., a name of a submitter of each document]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Parida in order to provide a method for improving the efficiency of electronic document retrieval and submission for claims processing (Parida: Paragraphs 1-4). Providing this user interface allows the user to review the files that have been acquired prior to submission to the payer (Parida: Paragraph 25).
14. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110320502) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20010041993) and Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658), and in further view of Richards (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20080021732).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Richards, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: determining whether certain data associated with the packet is missing (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user);
in response to determining that the certain data is missing, causing a message to be transmitted to a computing device or account of an entity that is different than the entity that operates the apparatus, wherein the message indicates that the certain data is missing and invites the entity to provide the certain data (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Richards in order to enable medical care providers to generate claims with no errors (i.e., referred to as clean claims) for the mutual benefit of the medical care provider and the payor (Richards: Paragraph 65).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Marin teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: determining that the packet is associated with a second document (See at least Paragraph 50: Each time a content object is created the system looks for the checklist objects with a placeholder waiting for the created content object. In other words, the checklist object receives multiple content objects);
determining whether the second document is missing a required data item (See at least Paragraph 51: The checklist object looks to see if there is a placeholder waiting for the created document. In other words, the checklist object determines if the created content object is missing);
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Richards, however, does teach:
in response to determining that the second document is missing one or more required data items, causing a message to be transmitted to a computing device of user that is associated with the claim, wherein the message identifies the one or more required data items, indicates that the one or more required data items are missing, and invites the user to provide the one or more required data items (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Richards in order to enable medical care providers to generate claims with no errors (i.e., referred to as clean claims) for the mutual benefit of the medical care provider and the payor (Richards: Paragraph 65).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Richards, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: determining whether certain data associated with the packet is missing (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user);
in response to determining that the certain data is missing, causing a message to be transmitted to a computing device or account of an entity that is different than the entity that operates the apparatus, wherein the message indicates that the certain data is missing and invites the entity to provide the certain data (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Richards in order to enable medical care providers to generate claims with no errors (i.e., referred to as clean claims) for the mutual benefit of the medical care provider and the payor (Richards: Paragraph 65).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Marin teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: determining that the packet is associated with a second document (See at least Paragraph 50: Each time a content object is created the system looks for the checklist objects with a placeholder waiting for the created content object. In other words, the checklist object receives multiple content objects);
determining whether the second document is missing a required data item (See at least Paragraph 51: The checklist object looks to see if there is a placeholder waiting for the created document. In other words, the checklist object determines if the created content object is missing);
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Richards, however, does teach:
in response to determining that the second document is missing one or more required data items, causing a message to be transmitted to a computing device of user that is associated with the claim, wherein the message identifies the one or more required data items, indicates that the one or more required data items are missing, and invites the user to provide the one or more required data items (See at least Paragraph 131: Describes a process for detecting errors in medical claims information. The server checks all of the received information for errors [e.g., missing information]. If any errors are detected, the server sends a request for additional information to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Richards in order to enable medical care providers to generate claims with no errors (i.e., referred to as clean claims) for the mutual benefit of the medical care provider and the payor (Richards: Paragraph 65).
15. Claims 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110320502) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20010041993) and Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658), and in further view of Magnus (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070179818).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Marin teaches:
wherein the claim document is a first claim document, wherein the packet is one of a plurality of packets, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause, after updating the packet to indicate that the particular required document has been received: receiving a second indication of a receipt of a second document (See at least Paragraph 51: The content management system receives an indication that a new content object has been created [i.e., a required document has been received]. The system may create a separate instance of the checklist object for each claim received [see Paragraph 41]. Examiner’s Note: While Marin does not explicitly state that a second document is received, Marin does teach that the process of receiving documents may continue iteratively until all placeholders have been fulfilled [see Figure 5]);
identifying a second required document in the set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 41: The checklist object includes a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim. The system may identify a placeholder for a particular required document that waits for the particular document [e.g., a first notice of loss]);
storing second data that associates the second document with the second required document and the packet (See at least Paragraph 51: In response to determining that the receipt of a new content object satisfies one or more placeholders in the checklist object the system marks each fulfilled placeholder as fulfilled, and stores the content object in association with the checklist object [also see Paragraph 22]);
updating the packet to indicate that the second required document has been received (See at least Paragraph 51: When the content object is determined to fulfill the one or more placeholders, the placeholder is marked as fulfilled [i.e., the placeholder within the checklist object is marked as “received”]),
wherein the packet indicates that one or more second required documents, in the set of required documents, that are different than the particular required document and the second required document, have not been received (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: Each placeholder may have an associated flag indicating whether it has been received. Once a content object corresponding to the placeholder is received, it is marked/flagged as received [also see Figure 3]. In other words, placeholders that have not yet received a document are indicated as not having received a document).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Magnus, however, does teach:
in response to receiving the second indication, determining that the second document pertains to the packet and no other packet of the plurality of packets (See at least Paragraphs 20 and 21: Describes a system for integrated claim processing. The system may assign a unique claim identifier to a particular claim [i.e., a packet]. Additional claim-related information received and litigation/arbitration documents, are identified by the unique claim identifier and are related to the claim via the unique claim identifier. In other words, documents may be determined to be associated with a unique claim, and no other claims, based on the unique claim identifier);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Magnus in order to provide assistance to physicians and claimants who often do not possess the skills necessary to prepare and process insurance claims (Magnus: Paragraphs 5-7). This is done, in part, by automatically grouping received documents with their corresponding claim based on the unique identifier.
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Marin teaches:
wherein the claim document is a first claim document, wherein the packet is one of a plurality of packets, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause, after updating the packet to indicate that the particular required document has been received: receiving a second indication of a receipt of a second document (See at least Paragraph 51: The content management system receives an indication that a new content object has been created [i.e., a required document has been received]. The system may create a separate instance fo the checklist object for each claim received [see Paragraph 41]. Examiner’s Note: While Marin does not explicitly state that a second document is received, Marin does teach that the process of receiving documents may continue iteratively until all placeholders have been fulfilled [see Figure 5]);
identifying a second required document in the set of required documents (See at least Paragraph 41: The checklist object includes a set of documents required to process a particular car insurance claim. The system may identify a placeholder for a particular required document that waits for the particular document [e.g., a first notice of loss]);
storing second data that associates the second document with the second required document and the packet (See at least Paragraph 51: In response to determining that the receipt of a new content object satisfies one or more placeholders in the checklist object the system marks each fulfilled placeholder as fulfilled, and stores the content object in association with the checklist object [also see Paragraph 22]);
updating the packet to indicate that the second required document has been received (See at least Paragraph 51: When the content object is determined to fulfill the one or more placeholders, the placeholder is marked as fulfilled [i.e., the placeholder within the checklist object is marked as “received”]),
wherein the packet indicates that one or more second required documents, in the set of required documents, that are different than the particular required document and the second required document, have not been received (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: Each placeholder may have an associated flag indicating whether it has been received. Once a content object corresponding to the placeholder is received, it is marked/flagged as received [also see Figure 3]. In other words, placeholders that have not yet received a document are indicated as not having received a document).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Magnus, however, does teach:
in response to receiving the second indication, determining that the second document pertains to the packet and no other packet of the plurality of packets (See at least Paragraphs 20 and 21: Describes a system for integrated claim processing. The system may assign a unique claim identifier to a particular claim [i.e., a packet]. Additional claim-related information received and litigation/arbitration documents, are identified by the unique claim identifier and are related to the claim via the unique claim identifier. In other words, documents may be determined to be associated with a unique claim, and no other claims, based on the unique claim identifier);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Magnus in order to provide assistance to physicians and claimants who often do not possess the skills necessary to prepare and process insurance claims (Magnus: Paragraphs 5-7). This is done, in part, by automatically grouping received documents with their corresponding claim based on the unique identifier.
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Marin teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: receiving a second indication of a receipt of a second document (See at least Paragraph 51: The content management system receives an indication that a new content object has been created [i.e., a required document has been received]. Examiner’s Note: While Marin does not explicitly state that a second document is received, Marin does teach that the process of receiving documents may continue iteratively until all placeholders have been fulfilled [see Figure 5]);
determining that the second document is not one of the required documents in the set of required documents for the packet (See at least Paragraph 33: A placeholder may be determined to be optional [i.e., it is not a required placeholder for the checklist object]);
storing second data that associates the second document with the packet and that indicates that the second document is an ancillary document in the packet (See at least Paragraph 33: Each placeholder may be marked by a flag to distinguish between required and optional placeholders).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but Magnus, however, does teach:
in response to receiving the second indication, determining that the second document pertains to the packet and no other packet (See at least Paragraphs 20 and 21: Describes a system for integrated claim processing. The system may assign a unique claim identifier to a particular claim [i.e., a packet]. Additional claim-related information received and litigation/arbitration documents, are identified by the unique claim identifier and are related to the claim via the unique claim identifier. In other words, documents may be determined to be associated with a unique claim, and no other claims, based on the unique claim identifier);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and Magnus in order to provide assistance to physicians and claimants who often do not possess the skills necessary to prepare and process insurance claims (Magnus: Paragraphs 5-7). This is done, in part, by automatically grouping received documents with their corresponding claim based on the unique identifier.
16. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110320502) in view of Campbell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20010041993) and Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658), and in further view of GoGwilt (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240202467). Examiner’s Note: Support for the relevant portions of GoGwilt is provided in provisional application number 63/482,547 filed on January 31, 2023.
Claim 22
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but GoGwilt, however, does teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: detecting a potential problem, issue, or anomaly with the particular required document (See at least Paragraphs 64-66: Describes a system for identifying errors in legal documents. The system may determine, for example, that a particular clause is not allowed in a particular type of contract [Also see Paragraph 25]);
in response to detecting the potential problem, issue, or anomaly, causing to be displayed, in a second user interface, in association with the particular required document of the set of required documents, a hazard data icon that indicates a potential problem, issue, or anomaly with the particular required document (See at least Paragraphs 64-66: The system may display an indication that the particular clause is not permitted within the particular type of contract [i.e., a hazard data icon; Figure 3, 315]);
in response to receiving user input that selects the hazard data icon, causing, to be displayed a new user interface or new page that indicates one or more details about the potential problem, issue, or anomaly that were not displayed in the second user interface (See at least Paragraph 65: The user may interact with the selectable link that opens the document at issue, e.g., within a separate user interface or page); and
receiving a user selection on the new user interface; and updating the user interface to reflect the user selection in response to receiving the user selection (See at least Paragraphs 67-72: The user may make updates to the document based on the identified errors by interacting with a selectable button to remove the problematic language [See Figure 4B, 435]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and GoGwilt in order to allow multiple parties to actively manage a document. The user interfaces described allow individuals to correct errors within the document in a more efficient and reliable manner (GoGwilt: Paragraph 3).
Claim 23
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Marin, Campbell, and Cochran does not explicitly teach, but GoGwilt, however, does teach:
wherein detecting the potential problem comprises detecting, by a machine-learned model that has been trained based on a training set of past anomalies and non-anomalies, the potential problem, issue, or anomaly (See at least Paragraph 25: The system may utilize a machine learning model to identify the potential issues with the documents provided by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Marin, Campbell, Cochran, and GoGwilt in order to reduce the need for manual processes for detection and correction of errors in legal documents, which are often slow and susceptible to human error (GoGwilt: Paragraph 3).
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant’s arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
18. The prior rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
19. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 13-15) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on page 13 of their remarks, the applicant agues, “This is a specific software architecture of a profile to an instance with inheritance, plus an update of the packet's indicators that changes how the system stores and updates the document requirement state. That kind of data structure-centric improvement to computer operation is the reason that decisions like Enfish (specific table design) and Data Engine (specific UI/structure solving a computer-navigation problem) found claims patent-eligible. The MPEP §2106.04(d) recognizes that such improvements to computer functionality weigh against abstractness by stating that claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field are not directed to an abstract idea.” Similar arguments are presented on page 14 of the applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the system stores and updates the document requirement state. For example, claim 1 recites limitations receiving a document and updating the packet to indicate that the particular document has been received. However, the claim provides no technical detail regarding how the packet is structured and/or how the packet is updated. Therefore, such limitations do not provide any indication of an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Rather, this amounts to no more than merely receiving/storing documents corresponding to an insurance claim, and tracking which documents have been received.
Additionally, on page 15 of their remarks, the applicant agues, “However, the claims here specify what data structures exist (packet profile), how a packet instance is created, what is inherited, and how runtime updates occur in memory to reduce latency. That is not "apply it," but a technology-based solution recognized as eligible in DDR (Internet-specific manipulation) and BASCOM (inventive concept in the arrangement).” Similar arguments are presented on page 14 of the applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding the packet profile and/or the packet instance. For example, claim 1 simply states that the packet profile, “comprises a data structure including packet profile attributes, where one or more packet profile attributes identify a set of required documents for a claim.” Simply stating that the packet profile comprises a “data structure” does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Similarly, simply stating that the packet instance “inherits” the attributes of the packet profile does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the instance is created. In other words, the claims do not appear to provide sufficient technical detail regarding how these features are implemented to provide any indication that they amount to a technology-based solution. Rather, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying a generic data structure to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
20. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s claim amendments. However, the prior rejection of claims 4, 5, and 19 have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments and arguments. A suitable combination of references could not be identified to reasonably teach the specific combination of limitations recited in these claims.
Additionally, on page 17 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The examiner is invited to notice that Feit does not display a plurality of claim attributes of each claim of a plurality of claims. Feit only describes displaying information about one claim while displaying links to view other claims.” While the examiner agrees that Feit does not disclose a user interface which displays claim attributes for a plurality of claims in a single page of the interface, the examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not require this particular detail. Specifically, claim 1 simply states, “causing to be displayed, in a user interface, multiple claim data that indicates a plurality of claim attributes of each claim in a plurality of claims that includes the claim.” This limitation does not clarify that the user interface must only display a single page that contains information regarding the plurality of claims. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the user interface, as currently described in claim 1, includes a user interface comprising a plurality of pages for displaying information regarding a plurality of claims. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Feit reference has been replaced with Cochran (U.S. Patent No. 11151658) to more explicitly teach a user interface which displays the plurality of claims on a single user interface page. The applicant is pointed to the 103 rejection above for additional detail.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Albert (U.S. Patent No. 9684932): Describes systems and methods for an interactive graphical user interface for depicting the status of an insurance claim.
Combs (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230105093): Describes a customizable user interface for an insurance claim review, including a completion status for the claim review and a summary of each claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights