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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-15, 18-25 have been reviewed and addressed below. Claims 4-5, 7, 16-17 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicants amendments filed on 2-6-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments as a whole integrates the abstract idea into practical application and improves over the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the instant claim wherein it determines benefit eligibility. The instant claim does not improve the computer technology itself rather it uses generic computer components to execute the abstract idea.
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 1-3, 6, 8-15, 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-25 are drawn to method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 13, 19 recite “receiving a patient health care benefit query from a requestor”, “generating a health coverage eligibility request for a patient associated with the patient health care benefit query”, “communicating the health care coverage eligibility request to a payor”, “generating one or more rules based on unstructured information obtained from a benefit information source provided by the payor of the patient”, “adjudicating one or more rules contained in the benefit rules repository”, “updating the benefit rule repository based on an eligibility confirmation response from the payor”, “determining a benefit eligibility result for the patient based on adjudicating the one or more rules”, “in response to determining the benefit eligibility result communicating the benefit eligibility result to the requestor wherein at least one of”, “generating the one or more rules comprises configuring or modifying first data structures”, “adjudicating the one or more rules comprises configuring or modifying second data structures”, “determining and based on the updated benefit rule repository one or more additional benefit eligibility results”, “wherein receiving the patient health care benefit query, generating the health coverage eligibility request, communicating the healthcare coverage eligibility request, generating the one or more rules, adjudicating the one or more rules, determining the benefit eligibility result and communicating the benefit eligibility result are performed in real time”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by performing statistical analysis and updating the model and outputting treatment recommendation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “electronically”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “computer program product”, “computer”, “natural language processing”, “benefit rule repository”, “memory of the computer system” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving a patient health care benefit query”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 49 that “a data processing system 600 that may be used to implement the benefit discovery server 130 of FIG. 1, in accordance with some embodiments of the inventive concept, comprises input device(s) 602, such as a keyboard or keypad, a display 604, and a memory 606 that communicate with a processor 608. The data processing system 500 may further include a storage system 610, a speaker 612, and an input/output (I/O) data port(s) 614 that also communicate with the processor 608. The processor 608 may be, for example, a commercially available or custom microprocessor. The storage system 610 may include removable and/or fixed media, such as floppy disks, ZIP drives, hard disks, or the like, as well as virtual storage, such as a RAMDISK”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving a patient health care benefit query”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6, 8-12, 14-15, 18, 20-25 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684