DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 14 August 2025. Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 16, and 20 were amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 15, and 18 were canceled. Claims 21 was newly added. Claims 1, 3, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a medical procedure” in line 12. It is not clear whether this is the same medical procedure already mentioned in line 8, or a different procedure. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “the medical procedure” in line 12. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3 and 6-12 inherit this deficiency.
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, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1, 3, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-21 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1, 3, 4-12, 12 and 21 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 13-14, 16-17, and 19 fall within the category of a process. Claim 20 falls within the category of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1, 3, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-21 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
… patient information, wherein the patient information comprises patient account information;
wherein the medical inventory tracking information is associated with usage of medical inventory during a medical procedure, and wherein the RFID tags are configured to track the medical inventory
obtain a request from a patient to avail a medical procedure from a medical provider;
obtain the patient information … responsive to obtaining the request; and
determine that a health saving account associated with the patient is linked with the healthcare management system based on the patient information;
enable the patient to schedule an appointment for the medical procedure with the medical provider responsive to a determination that the health saving account is linked with the healthcare management system;
store medical procedure information associated with the medical procedure … when the medical procedure is performed, wherein the medical procedure information comprises the medical inventory tracking information;
determine a medical procedure authenticity based on the medical procedure information;
estimates medical inventory to be used in the medical procedure;
tracks an actual medical inventory used during appointment timing based on the medical inventory tracking information from the RFID tags;
determines whether the estimated medical inventory matches with the actual medical inventory; and
determines the medical procedure authenticity based on the determination whether the estimated medical inventory matches with the actual medical inventory;
store information associated with the medical procedure authenticity …; and
deduct an amount associated with the medical procedure from the health saving account responsive to a determination that the medical procedure is authentic.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “processing healthcare payments,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Processing healthcare payments” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, the claims are considered to recite a mental process because they recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
one or more nodes associated with a blockchain;
a blockchain ledger [storing information related to the abstract idea listed above];
a transceiver configured to receive medical inventory tracking information from Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags;
a processor communicatively coupled to the blockchain ledger.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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, the additional element(s), individually and in combination, merely amount to reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the medical procedure information comprises a medical procedure type and medical procedure date and time.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: estimate medical tools to be used in the medical procedure;
determine that the estimated medical tool is sterilized based on the medical inventory tracking information; and
determine the medical procedure authenticity based on the determination.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to transmit a request to a patient device requesting the patient to link the health saving account with the healthcare management system responsive to a determination that the health saving account is not linked.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to determine the amount associated with the medical procedure when the medical procedure is performed.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites the method of claim 8, wherein:
the processor is further configured to store the amount in the blockchain ledger.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the patient has missed the appointment; and
deduct a predefined amount from the health saving account responsive to a determination that the patient has missed the appointment.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 10 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites the method of claim 10, wherein:
the processor is further configured to store the predefined amount in the blockchain ledger.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the amount associated with the medical procedure is greater than an amount available in the health saving account;
calculate a deficit amount by subtracting the amount and the amount available in the health saving account; and
transmit a notification to a medical provider device, wherein the notification comprises the deficit amount.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is ineligible.
Claims 13-14, 16, and 19 are parallel in nature to claims 1, 3, 7, and 10. Accordingly claims 13-14, 16, and 19 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 17 recites the method of claim 16, wherein:
correlating appointment timing with the medical inventory tracking information; and
determining the medical procedure authenticity based on the correlation.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 16 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 17 is considered to be ineligible.
Claim 20 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Accordingly claim 20 is rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 21 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the blockchain ledger is configured to store a mapping of a plurality of medical procedures and a plurality of medical inventories, and wherein the processor is configured to estimate the medical inventory to be used in the medical procedure based on the mapping.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 21 is ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo (U.S. 2023/0138516), hereinafter “Romeo,” in view of Blankinship et al. (U.S. 2020/0388362), hereinafter “Blankinship.”
Regarding Claim 1, Romeo discloses a healthcare management system comprising:
[storage] comprising patient information, wherein the patient information comprises patient account information (See Romeo [0032] system can be used in connection with a medical or healthcare practice. [0058] payment information can be compiled for the patient including payments or copayments made by the patient, insurance information, and received insurance endorsements. [0062] system provides access to patient billing records. [0063] Billing information can include information about a patient's account history including, for example, insurance information, prior payment information, account balances, and so on.);
a transceiver configured to receive medical inventory tracking information from Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags (See Romeo [0080] system can use RFID to track inventory, determine whether the correct item has been pulled from inventory, and confirm that the scanned item matches the prescription. Once confirmed, the inventory records can be updated to reflect the fact that the item has been removed from inventory.), wherein the medical inventory tracking information is associated with usage of medical inventory during a medical procedure (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.), and wherein the RFID tags are configured to track the medical inventory (See Romeo [0080] system can use RFID to track inventory, determine whether the correct item has been pulled from inventory, and confirm that the scanned item matches the prescription.); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the [storage] (See Romeo [0114] the system can include the use of one or more processors.), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a request from a patient to avail a medical procedure from a medical provider (See Romeo [0058] Billing information can be compiled for the patient visit, tests performed, supplies provided, prescription items delivered in other billing information. [0083] system enables scheduling a next appointment, and scheduling tests or other follow-up actions.);
obtain the patient information from the [storage] responsive to obtaining the request (See Romeo [0058] payment information can be compiled for the patient including payments or copayments made by the patient, insurance information, and received insurance endorsements. [0062] system provides access to patient billing records.);
determine that a [payment account] associated with the patient is linked with the healthcare management system based on the patient information (See Romeo [0058] payment information can be compiled for the patient including payments or copayments made by the patient, insurance information, and received insurance endorsements. [0062] system provides access to patient billing records. [0063] Billing information can include information about a patient's account history including, for example, insurance information, prior payment information, account balances, and so on.);
enable the patient to schedule an appointment for the medical procedure with the medical provider (See Romeo [0034] system can assist with scheduling patient visits such as, for example, follow-on appointments, tests, and other events. [0058] where follow-up visits or future tests are scheduled, the scheduling information can be accepted by application. [0083] the system enables scheduling a next appointment, and scheduling tests or other follow-up actions.) responsive to a determination that the [payment account] is linked with the healthcare management system (See Romeo [0066] If additional information is required from the patient, this information can be requested of or obtained from the patient. The attendant can enter the updated information into the application. For example, the attendant can enter new or updated insurance information, and indication that appropriate copayments were made, and so on. [0067] system can require approval of the appointment at one or more steps along the appointment process.);
store medical procedure information associated with the medical procedure in [the storage] when the medical procedure is performed (See Romeo [0034] The information regarding the patient visit used by billing can include information such as, for example, the doctor or healthcare provider visited by the patient, supplies provided to or used in the treatment of the patient, articles delivered to the patient (e.g., a knee brace, crutches, etc.) and other information used to generate the bill. [0086] Billing records can be updated to include the visit and any pertinent details regarding the visit, materials and supplies used for the visit or provided to the patient, tests or other operations performed, and so on.), wherein the medical procedure information comprises the medical inventory tracking information (See Romeo [0086] Billing records can be updated to include the visit and any pertinent details regarding the visit, materials and supplies used for the visit or provided to the patient, tests or other operations performed, and so on. See also [0080].);
determine a medical procedure authenticity based on the medical procedure information (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. The information provided by the physician assistant can be used to update the patient's billing and health records. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a determination of authenticity. See also [0091].), wherein to determine the medical procedure authenticity, the processor:
estimates medical inventory to be used in the medical procedure (See Romeo [0080] system can use RFID to track inventory, determine whether the correct item has been pulled from inventory, and confirm that the scanned item matches the prescription.);
tracks an actual medical inventory used during appointment timing based on the medical inventory tracking information from the RFID tags (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.);
determines whether the estimated medical inventory matches with the actual medical inventory (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.); and
determines the medical procedure authenticity based on the determination whether the estimated medical inventory matches with the actual medical inventory (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.);
store information associated with the medical procedure authenticity in the [storage] (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.); and
deduct an amount associated with the medical procedure from [the payment account] responsive to a determination that the medical procedure is authentic (See Romeo [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus. [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. The information provided by the physician assistant can be used to update the patient's billing and health records. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a determination of authenticity. See also [0091].).
Romeo does not disclose:
one or more nodes associated with a blockchain, wherein the one or more nodes comprises: [the storage and the processor described above].
[the storage is a] a blockchain ledger;
[the payment account] is a health savings account.
Blankinship teaches:
one or more nodes associated with a blockchain (See Blankinship [0042] the system can use blockchain for collecting healthcare data and transactions, and making records.), wherein the one or more nodes comprises: [the storage and the processor described above].
[the storage is a] a blockchain ledger (See Blankinship [0042] the system can use blockchain for collecting healthcare data and transactions, and making records.);
[the payment account] is a health savings account (See Blankinship [0104] the system is linked to a tax-advantaged health benefit account of a user. An example of a tax-advantaged health benefit account includes a health savings account (HSA).).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
the medical procedure information comprises a medical procedure type and medical procedure date and time (See Romeo [0086] Billing records can be updated to include the visit and any pertinent details regarding the visit, materials and supplies used for the visit or provided to the patient, tests or other operations performed, and so on. See also [0080].).
Regarding claim 7, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to transmit a request to a patient device requesting the patient to link [the payment account] with the healthcare management system responsive to a determination that the health saving account is not linked (See Romeo [0066] If additional information is required from the patient, this information can be requested of or obtained from the patient. The attendant can enter the updated information into the application. For example, the attendant can enter new or updated insurance information, and indication that appropriate copayments were made, and so on.).
Romeo does not disclose:
[the payment account] is a health savings account.
Blankinship teaches:
[the payment account] is a health savings account (See Blankinship [0104] the system is linked to a tax-advantaged health benefit account of a user. An example of a tax-advantaged health benefit account includes a health savings account (HSA).).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 8, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to determine the amount associated with the medical procedure when the medical procedure is performed (See Romeo [0034] the system can receive information regarding the patient visit used by billing can include information such as the doctor or healthcare provider visited by the patient, supplies provided to or used in the treatment of the patient, articles delivered to the patient (e.g., a knee brace, crutches, etc.) and other information used to generate the bill.).
Regarding claim 9, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 8 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to store the amount in [the storage] (See Romeo [0034] the system can receive information regarding the patient visit used by billing can include information such as the doctor or healthcare provider visited by the patient, supplies provided to or used in the treatment of the patient, articles delivered to the patient (e.g., a knee brace, crutches, etc.) and other information used to generate the bill.).
Romeo does not disclose:
[the storage] is a blockchain ledger.
Blankinship teaches:
[the storage] is a blockchain ledger (See Blankinship [0042] the system can use blockchain for collecting healthcare data and transactions, and making records.).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 13-14, and 16, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claims 1, 3, and 7 as discussed above. Claims 13-14, and 16 recite a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claims 1, 3, and 7. Accordingly, claims 13-14, and 16 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 17, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the method of claim 16 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
correlating appointment timing with the medical inventory tracking information (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.); and
determining the medical procedure authenticity based on the correlation (See Romeo [0081] system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient. [0056] the system receives confirmation of delivery of the prescribed orthopedic apparatus.).
Regarding claim 20, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 20 recites medium that stores instructions to perform a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo (U.S. 2023/0138516), hereinafter “Romeo,” in view of Blankinship et al. (U.S. 2020/0388362), hereinafter “Blankinship,” and further in view of Karumba et al. (U.S. 2018/0189449), hereinafter “Karumba.”
Regarding claim 6, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: estimate medical tools to be used in the medical procedure (See Romeo [0086] a bill can be created for the patient. This includes the visit and any pertinent details regarding the visit, materials and supplies used for the visit or provided to the patient, tests or other operations performed, and so on.);
determine the medical procedure authenticity based on the determination (See Romeo [0085] system receives confirmation of completion of a medical appointment. [0086] based on the completed appointment, a bill can be created for the patient. This includes the visit and any pertinent details regarding the visit, materials and supplies used for the visit or provided to the patient, tests or other operations performed, and so on.).
Romeo does not disclose:
determine that the estimated medical tool is sterilized based on the medical inventory tracking information.
Karumba teaches:
determine that the estimated medical tool is sterilized based on the medical inventory tracking information (See Karumba [0031] the system can use blockchain technology to track use of surgical tools, including when the tool is sterilized.).
The system of Karumba is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo in view of Blankinship as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking healthcare resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include tool sterilization tracking as taught by Karumba. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to establish trust, accountability and transparency with regard to the surgical items without requiring a central authority (see Karumba [0031]).
Claims 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo (U.S. 2023/0138516), hereinafter “Romeo,” in view of Blankinship et al. (U.S. 2020/0388362), hereinafter “Blankinship,” and further in view of Beck et al. (U.S. 2007/0033070), hereinafter “Beck.”
Regarding claim 10, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the patient has missed the appointment; and
deduct a predefined amount from the health saving account responsive to a determination that the patient has missed the appointment.
Beck teaches:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the patient has missed the appointment (See Beck [0084] the system can store codes for fees related to missed appointments.); and
deduct a predefined amount from the health saving account responsive to a determination that the patient has missed the appointment (See Beck [0071] patients can pay the required fees using funds from Health savings accounts. [0084] the system can store codes for fees related to missed appointments.).
The system of Beck is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo in view of Blankinship as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include the various fees and notifications as taught by Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to avoid the lost revenues, high expenses, and patient and professional dissatisfaction stemming from the patient insurance and reimbursement systems that characterize today's healthcare system in certain countries (see Beck [0012]).
Regarding claim 11, Romeo in view of Blankinship and Beck discloses the system of claim 10 as discussed above. Romeo does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to store the predefined amount in the blockchain ledger.
Blankinship teaches:
the processor is further configured to store the predefined amount in the blockchain ledger (See Blankinship [0042] the system can use blockchain for collecting healthcare data and transactions, and making records. [0273] the system can store authorized amounts to charge for a service. See also [0190].).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 12, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the amount associated with the medical procedure is greater than an amount available in the health saving account;
calculate a deficit amount by subtracting the amount and the amount available in the health saving account; and
transmit a notification to a medical provider device, wherein the notification comprises the deficit amount.
Blankinship teaches:
the processor is further configured to: determine that the amount associated with the medical procedure is greater than an amount available in the health saving account (See Blankinship [0104] the system is linked to a tax-advantaged health benefit account of a user. An example of a tax-advantaged health benefit account includes a health savings account (HSA). The system can determine that the cost exceeds the funds by an amount.);
calculate a deficit amount by subtracting the amount and the amount available in the health saving account (See Blankinship [0104] the system is linked to a tax-advantaged health benefit account of a user. An example of a tax-advantaged health benefit account includes a health savings account (HSA). The system can determine that the cost exceeds the funds by an amount.).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Beck teaches:
transmit a notification to a medical provider device, wherein the notification comprises the deficit amount (See Beck [0074] system can alert provider of any outstanding balances for this patient related to earlier visits or miscellaneous charges.).
The system of Beck is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo in view of Blankinship as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include the various fees and notifications as taught by Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to avoid the lost revenues, high expenses, and patient and professional dissatisfaction stemming from the patient insurance and reimbursement systems that characterize today's healthcare system in certain countries (see Beck [0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 10 as discussed above. Claim 19 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo (U.S. 2023/0138516), hereinafter “Romeo,” in view of Blankinship et al. (U.S. 2020/0388362), hereinafter “Blankinship,” and further in view of Laster et al. (U.S. 2017/0061375), hereinafter “Laster.”
Regarding claim 21, Romeo in view of Blankinship discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Romeo does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the blockchain ledger is configured to
store a mapping of a plurality of medical procedures and a plurality of medical inventories, and wherein the processor is configured to estimate the medical inventory to be used in the medical procedure based on the mapping.
Blankinship teaches:
the blockchain ledger is configured to [store healthcare data] (See Blankinship [0042] the system can use blockchain for collecting healthcare data and transactions, and making records.).
The system of Blankinship is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to billing healthcare services. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo to include access to HSA and use of blockchain as taught by Blankinship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in order to facilitate tracking and organization of healthcare-related purchase transactions (see Blankinship [0050]; see also [0042] and [0104]).
Laster teaches:
store a mapping of a plurality of medical procedures and a plurality of medical inventories, and wherein the processor is configured to estimate the medical inventory to be used in the medical procedure based on the mapping (See Laster [0091] estimate of the overall inventory need of the medical facility may be determined for a specific time period, such as over the next week, month, or quarter, or may be performed for a set of procedures of a particular type, or for all scheduled procedures. [0124] mapped to a weighted score that represents an estimate of a quantity of each item to be stored in inventory for potential use in a procedure.).
The system of Laster is applicable to the disclosure of Romeo in view of Blankinship as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing medical inventory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romeo in view of Blankinship to include inventory mappings based on procedure as taught by Laster. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Romeo in view of Blankinship in order to determine which implants, tools, and other items to provide at a medical facility, and in what quantities (see Laster [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One because a processor is required and cannot be practically performed in the human mind (see Applicant Remarks pages 10-11). Applicant also states in this section that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity, but does not provide any argument in support. First, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III)(C)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claims recite a mental process being performed on a computer. Further, the claims also recite the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity, because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the interaction between healthcare providers and patients. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, and the analysis must continue.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A Prong Two (see Applicant Remarks pages 11-13). This is not persuasive because the additional elements present in the claims amount to merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Applicant Remarks pages 13-15). In support of this argument, Applicant states that the claims are novel over the prior art showing they are unconventional. First, the present claims are not considered to be free of prior art. Second, the analysis of prior art under sections 102 and 103 is not directly related to analysis of eligibility under section 101. It is not appropriate to conflate the two analyses. Accordingly, the claims are considered to be directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101.
Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Romeo does not disclose that the RFID tags are used to determine medical procedure authenticity or tracking inventory during appointment timing (see Applicant remarks pages 15-18). This is not persuasive. Romeo discloses that the RFID tag is used to confirm that the correct piece of inventory, the piece that matches the prescription, matches what has been removed (see Romeo [0080]). This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine medical procedure authenticity.” Romeo also explicitly states that the system allows the physician assistant to confirm that the prescribed item was in fact delivered to the patient during the appointment (see Romeo [0081]).
Next, Applicant argues that Romeo does not disclose facilitating patient scheduling when patient health savings account information is linked to the system (see Applicant remarks page 18-19). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Romeo is cited for disclosing that the appointment can be delayed in scheduling when more information is required from the patient, including insurance (i.e. payment) information (see Romeo [0066]-[0067]). Blankinship is cited for teaching that the payment information can include health savins account information connected to a patient (see Blankinship [0104]). The combination of these references teach that the setting the appointment can be delayed until the health savings account information is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamangar (U.S. 2022/0076851) discloses a system and method for collecting patient transaction information using blockchain technology and patient health savings accounts.
Applicant's 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684