The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 11/12/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the instant amendment, claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 15 and 17 have been amended.
The 35 USC §101 rejection over claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/12/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 11 and 17, the claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system/method/medium claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations “generate an event record based on …”, “identify the event record mapped to the event”, “identify the first external data system based on the event record”, “transform a message format of the received event from a first format to a second format via a format-specific adapter resulting in a transformed message”, and “validate a data schema for the transformed message via a schema validator”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “generate an event record based on …”, “identify the event record mapped to the event”, “identify the first external data system based on the event record”, “transform a message format of the received event from a first format to a second format via a format-specific adapter resulting in a transformed message”, and “validate a data schema for the transformed message via a schema validator” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional “a plurality of internal data systems”, “a plurality of external data system”, “a back-end application computer server”, “a computer processor, “a computer memory”, “receive an event onboarding request to onboard an event, the event including an exchange of data”, “receive selection of a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems and an event type”, and “receive, from a first internal data system of the plurality of data systems, the event” The “a plurality of internal data systems”, “a plurality of external data system”, “a back-end application computer server”, “a computer processor, “a computer memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition elements “receive an event onboarding request to onboard an event, the event including an exchange of data”, “receive selection of a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems and an event type”, and “receive, from a first internal data system of the plurality of data systems, the event” amount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Prong 2 Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a plurality of internal data systems”, “a plurality of external data system”, “a back-end application computer server”, “a computer processor, “a computer memory”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The additional elements “receive an event onboarding request to onboard an event, the event including an exchange of data”, “receive selection of a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems and an event type”, and “receive, from a first internal data system of the plurality of data systems, the event” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
Regarding claims 2 and 12, under prong 2, the “wherein the event is updated data” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, the limitation “identify” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “initiate”, “receive” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, under prong 2, the “wherein the second format is accessible …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “update” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “transmit” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 7, under prong 2, the “wherein the event onboarding request includes selection of an event category” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 8, under prong 2, the “Eligibility Application Programming Interface (API) and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); 11. Health Status; and iii. Claim Status.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 9, under prong 2, the “receive” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 10, under prong 2, the “receive” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “update” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “transmitting” and “updating” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “update” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving”, “creating” and “storing” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0078865 to Lee in further view of US 2018/0091937 to Allen et al. (hereafter “Allen”), US 2012/0268778 to Nakawaki and US 2017/0006135 to Siebel et al. (hereafter “Siebel”)
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of internal data systems (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0039-0040: “All elements inside the dotted square 100 are considered as internal to the system and everything else is external-to the system.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] components 40, 50, and 80);
a plurality of external data systems (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0039-0040: “All elements inside the dotted square 100 are considered as internal to the system and everything else is external-to the system.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] components 10, 20, 70 and 90);
a back-end application computer server (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0039-0040: “The application router 30 then routes the request to event monitors 70, services 51-56, part of event generator 50, database 80, and applications 41-43, etc., part of user applications 40.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] application router 30), coupled to the plurality of internal data systems and the plurality of external data systems (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0039-0040: “The application router 30 then routes the request to event monitors 70, services 51-56, part of event generator 50, database 80, and applications 41-43, etc., part of user applications 40.”);
receive an event onboarding request to onboard an event (FIGs. 1-4; paragraphs 0040-0057: “The user request for creating or changing the logic profile is communicated through each communication channel 12 to an application router 30. The application router 30 then routes the request to event monitors 70, services 51-56, part of event generator 50, database 80, and applications 41-43, etc., part of user applications 40. Each user request for creating a logic profile is registered in event monitor 60 and stored for persistence in database 80. After register the logic successfully in event monitor's computer memory, the event monitor then finds the corresponding event generator and subscribe for a particular event object.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] creating/changing a logic profile/configuration request [Wingdings font/0xE0] a request to register an event type and an action matched with the register event type as discloses by FIGs. 2-4), the event including an exchange of data (paragraphs 0040-0043: “The system supports eight choices in these event categories which are not exhaustive of such possible choices. These choices are: stock 211, news 212, market 213, order 214, account 215, email 216, call 217, and datetime 218. Each event category 210 selection corresponds to an event generator, which is defined such that it generates an event occurrence whenever the chosen event category 210 occurs in real time by either an external or internal event source, or even an user application.”) ;
receive selection of an event type (FIGs. 2-4; paragraphs 0041-0042: “The event category 210 describes the system domain, that is, the types of events that the system can support. The system supports eight choices in these event categories which are not exhaustive of such possible choices. These choices are: stock 211, news 212, market 213, order 214, account 215, email 216, call 217, and datetime 218.”);
generate an event record based on the event type (FIGs. 1-4; paragraphs 0040-0042: “Each user request for creating a logic profile is registered in event monitor 60 and stored for persistence in database 80. [Wingdings font/0xE0] the IF-condition (event object including event type) and Then action/Else action records are saved in the database 80);
Lee does not explicitly disclose a back-end application computer server, coupled to the plurality of external data systems, the back-end application computer server including:
a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to:
receive selection of a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems; generate an event record based on the selected first external data system; receive, from a first internal data system of the plurality of data systems, the event;
identify the event record mapped to the event;
identify the first external data system based on the event record;
transform a message format of the received event from a first format to a second format via a format-specific adapter resulting in a transformed message, wherein the first format is one of XML and JSON and the second format is one of XML and JSON and the first format is different from the second format, and the format-specific adapter maps each element in the received event from the first format to the second format; and
validate a data schema for the transformed message via a schema validator.
Allen further discloses a back-end application computer server, coupled to the plurality of external data systems (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0023-0025: repository 108 (backend server as claimed) coupling to provider services 112: pizza or sushi providers), the back-end application computer server including:
a computer processor (FIGs. 2-3; paragraphs 0029-0030), and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor (FIGs. 2-3; paragraphs 0029-0030), storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor (FIGs. 2-3; paragraphs 0029-0030), cause the back-end application computer server to:
receive selection of a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems (FIG. 8; paragraphs 0024-0027: “the repository 108 compares the requirements in the EIRs to the information provided for each actionable event. For example, the repository 108 may compare an EIR requiring “pizza,” a geographical location in the residential neighborhood, and credit card or third-party financial services vendor credentials to an actionable event having event data that includes the term “pizza,” geographical information that is within the specified residential neighborhood, and a validated PAYPAL® account.” [Wingdings font/0xE0]the pizza vendor matched the requirements and selected by the repository);
generate an event record based on the selected first external data system (paragraphs 0026-0027: “In response, the repository 108 updates its records to indicate that the provider accepted the event. In addition, the repository 108 sends an acceptance signal to the user device 104 that submitted the event data so that the user is informed about the acceptance. Further, the repository 108 may send to each of the parties additional information about the other party—for example, cell phone numbers, e-mail addresses, comments, and so on—to facilitate resolution of the actionable event.”);
receive, from a first internal data system of the plurality of data systems, the event (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0016: “The smart phone, at the direction of the app, transmits such event data to a repository, along with any other pertinent information, such as the sports fan's geographical location, payment information, a privacy designation indicating who may view the event data, and so on. The repository stores the event data and associated information. Because the repository may receive information from numerous individuals, the repository may organize the information in a database as appropriate—for example, according to type of request, according to geographical location, according to user, etc.”);
identify the event record mapped to the event (paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0026-0027 and 0035);
identify the first external data system based on the event record (paragraphs 0016-0017: “a sushi vendor uses an app on her smart phone to search for sports fans desiring sushi in sections 300-305 of the sports stadium. Specifically, she enters requirements—such as keywords (e.g., “sushi”), payment type (e.g., credit card only), and geographical location (e.g., sections 300-305)—into her app. Taken together, these requirements form an EIR. At the direction of the app, the sushi vendor's smart phone transmits the EIR to the repository. The repository compares the sushi vendor's EIR requirements to the various actionable events stored therein and identifies the sports fan's sushi request. The repository provides the sushi request to the sushi vendor's smart phone app for display to the sushi vendor. The vendor may then take appropriate action, such as indicating that she will resolve the event by providing the sports fan with the requested sushi, accepting payment via her smart phone using the credit card payment information provided by the repository, and providing an indication to the smart phone app that the event has been resolved so that the repository may be informed of the same. Alternatively, the vendor may reject the actionable event.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] a sushi vendor is associated with the record).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Allen into Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of matching actionable events—for example, situations in which an individual perceives no clear path to resolution—with providers of goods and services who are able to resolve such situations for the individual (Allen, paragraph 0014).
Nakawaki further discloses transform a message format of the received event from a first format to a second format via a format-specific adapter resulting in a transformed message (paragraphs 0157-0158: “The reverse can be employed. For example, the notification information A can be expressed in the XML format, while the notification information pieces B and C can be expressed in the JASON formats as illustrated in FIGS. 11E and 11F. In FIG. 11E, the information includes the descriptions of a storage place 1803 of the print data and a storage place 1804 of the print data.”), wherein the first format is one of XML and JSON and the second format is one of XML and JSON and the first format is different from the second format, and the format-specific adapter maps each element in the received event from the first format to the second format (paragraph 0158: “The reverse can be employed. For example, the notification information A can be expressed in the XML format, while the notification information pieces B and C can be expressed in the JASON formats as illustrated in FIGS. 11E and 11F. In FIG. 11E, the information includes the descriptions of a storage place 1803 of the print data and a storage place 1804 of the print data.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Nakawaki into Lee’s teaching and Allen’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the client computer 104 transmits the print setting in the XML format to the print server group 103. However, other formats can be used. For example, the print setting expressed in the JSON formats as illustrated in FIG. 11C and FIG. 11C' cab be transmitted (Nakawaki, paragraph 0157).
Siebel further discloses validate a data schema for the transformed message via a schema validator (in view of paragraphs 0096 and 0114 of the instant specification PGPUB, Siebel paragraphs 0344 and 0375 discloses “Message validation will consist of XML schema validation, ensuring that the structure of the message is compliant with schema and can properly transformed and loaded.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Siebel into Lee’s teaching, Allen’s teaching, and Nakawaki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of ensuring that the structure of the message is compliant with schema and can properly transformed and loaded (Siebel, paragraph 0375).
As per claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the event is updated data (FIG. 2; paragraph 0042).
As per claim 3, Lee discloses when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to, prior to receipt of the event:
initiate, by a scheduler, execution of a notification client (FIG. 4; paragraphs 0042-0057: the GUI scheduler for the client to create/change the profile logic/configuration);
identify electronic record data for the first external data system (FIG. 4; paragraphs 0042-0057: to enter/provide IF condition with event object (event type));
receive an indication of updated data at the first external data system (FIG. 1; paragraph 0042: “When a bid/ask price of a stock is updated in its market, a price event is generated and sent to the system for comparison.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] price changed by price vendor 71 for example); and
receive the event in response to execution of the member detail client (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0042-0057: user 10/user interface 20 receiving the events according to the profile logic configuration).
Allen further discloses initiate, by the scheduler, execution of a member detail client (FIG. 8; paragraphs 0024-0027).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Allen into Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of matching actionable events—for example, situations in which an individual perceives no clear path to resolution—with providers of goods and services who are able to resolve such situations for the individual (Allen, paragraph 0014).
As per claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the event onboarding request includes selection of an event category (FIG. 4; paragraphs 0043-0050).
As per claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the back-end application computer server receives the event based on a subscription to the event at the first internal data system (paragraph 0040-0042: “After register the logic successfully in event monitor's computer memory, the event monitor then finds the corresponding event generator and subscribe for a particular event object. Event sources 70 such as price vendor 71, news vendor 72, email server 73, the user him/herself 10 (shown as numeral 74) and others, communicate with the event generator 50.”).
As per claim 10, Allen does not explicitly disclose cause the back-end application computer server to, prior to receipt of the event onboarding request:
receive an external data system onboarding request for a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems;
receive an external data system identifier for the first external data system and an external data system function for the first external data system;
create an external data system record of the first external data system; and
store the external data system record in the memory.
Allen further discloses cause the back-end application computer server to, prior to receipt of the event onboarding request:
receive an external data system onboarding request for a first external data system of the plurality of external data systems (paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0019: “Accordingly, providers may transmit event identification requests (“EIRs”) to the repository. Each EIR contains one or more requirements that the repository uses to search its storage for a suitable actionable event that the provider may resolve. Such EIR requirements may specify, for instance, the types of goods or services the provider provides, the geographical area(s) the provider services, etc. The repository then compares the EIR requirements with actionable events stored in the repository, using event data entered by an individual reporting an actionable event, geographical information associated with the event, etc. This comparison may result in a match between an actionable event and the EIR of a service provider.”);
receive an external data system identifier for the first external data system (paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0019: “Continuing with this example, a sushi vendor uses an app on her smart phone to search for sports fans desiring sushi in sections 300-305 of the sports stadium. Specifically, she enters requirements—such as keywords (e.g., “sushi”), payment type (e.g., credit card only), and geographical location (e.g., sections 300-305)—into her app. Taken together, these requirements form an EIR. At the direction of the app, the sushi vendor's smart phone transmits the EIR to the repository.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] geographical location) and an external data system function for the first external data system (paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0019: “Continuing with this example, a sushi vendor uses an app on her smart phone to search for sports fans desiring sushi in sections 300-305 of the sports stadium. Specifically, she enters requirements—such as keywords (e.g., “sushi”), payment type (e.g., credit card only), and geographical location (e.g., sections 300-305)—into her app. Taken together, these requirements form an EIR. At the direction of the app, the sushi vendor's smart phone transmits the EIR to the repository.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] providing sushi or pizza);
create an external data system record of the first external data system (paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0019: creating an EIR); and
store the external data system record in the memory (paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0019: storing the EIR).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Allen into Lee’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of matching actionable events—for example, situations in which an individual perceives no clear path to resolution—with providers of goods and services who are able to resolve such situations for the individual (Allen, paragraph 0014).
As per claim 11, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 13, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 16, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
As per claim 17, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 18, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3 Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in further view of Allen, Nakawaki and Siebel, as applied to claims 1, 17, and further in view of US 2020/0258328 to Gawthorpe et al. (hereafter “Gawthorpe”)
As per claim 5, Gawthorpe does not explicitly disclose wherein the second format is accessible by the first external data system.
Gawthorpe further discloses wherein the second format is accessible by the first external data system (FIG. 2; paragraphs 0042 and 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Gawthorpe into Lee’s teaching, Allen’s teaching, Nakawaki’s teaching, and Siebel’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of receive raw data and perform data quality checks for raw data and schema evaluation. Ingesting and validating raw data is the start of a data quality pipeline of quality checks (Gawthorpe, paragraph 0046).
As per claim 20, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in further view of Allen, Nakawaki and Siebel, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Gawthorpe and US 2011/0010344 to Sjogren.
As per claim 6, Lee does not explicitly disclose transmit, after validation, the transformed message to the first external data system; and update a status of a record at the external data system based on the received transformed message.
Gawthorpe further discloses transmit, after validation, the transformed message to the first external data system (FIG. 2; paragraphs 0042 and 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Gawthorpe into Lee’s teaching, Allen’s teaching, Nakawaki’s teaching and Siebel’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of receive raw data and perform data quality checks for raw data and schema evaluation. Ingesting and validating raw data is the start of a data quality pipeline of quality checks (Gawthorpe, paragraph 0046).
Sjogren further discloses update a status of a record at the external data system based on the received transformed message (paragraph 0217)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Sjogren into Lee’s teaching, Allen’s teaching, Nakawaki’s teaching, Siebel’s teaching, and Gawthorpe’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of determining whether it should update the client and if so, what its proper update status is (Sjogren, paragraph 0217).
As per claim 15, it is a method claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in further view of Allen, Nakawaki, and Siebel, as applied to claim 7, and further in view of US 2022/0382784 to Osuala et al. (hereafter “Osuala”)
As per claim 8, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the event category is one of: i. Eligibility Application Programming Interface (API) and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); ii. Health Status; and iii. Claim Status.
Osuala further discloses wherein the event category is one of: i. Eligibility Application Programming Interface (API) and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI); ii. Health Status (paragraph 0051); and iii. Claim Status.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Osuala into Lee’s teaching, Allen’s teaching, Nakawaki’s teaching and Siebel’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the events comprise health status reporting events and a health incident event, wherein the set of event categories comprises one or more health status reporting categories and one health incident category, wherein the association rule is a causal relationship between the one or more health status reporting categories and the health incident category (Osuala, paragraph 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198