DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 9/2/25. Claims 1-9 were amended. Claims 15-16 are new. Claims 1-16 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the claims were amended substantively. Per example, amended claim 1 recites “[continuously updating …, wherein] the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts” which necessitates reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
103: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the recited references.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of new claims and that the amendments are substantive. Per example, the amended claim 1 recites “continuously updating, by the one or more processors, a record associated with the transaction data to indicate whether further verification is needed, and as a result of a total out-of-pocket amount of one or more out-of-pocket transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts being greater than the spending limit associated with the healthcare account, assigning a verified status to the healthcare account, where the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts” which necessitates an updated search and a reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case claims 1-7 and 15 are directed to a machine and claims 8-14 and 16 are directed to a process.
When analyzed under prong one of step 2A, see MPEP 2106.04(a), claim 8 recites verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction which is a form of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interaction) and an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Specifically, the claim recites:
receiving, …, transaction data corresponding to the one or more transactions between an account holder and one or more merchants, wherein the transaction data includes one or more transaction amounts and identifying information for the healthcare account of the account holder;
determining, …, whether the one or more merchants associated with the transaction data have been previously verified;
comparing, …, a spending limit associated with the healthcare account with each of the one or more transaction amounts;
continuously updating, …, a record associated with the transaction data to indicate whether further verification is needed and as a result of a total out-of-pocket amount of one or more out-of-pocket transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts being greater than the spending limit associated with the healthcare account, assigning a verified status to the healthcare account, where …
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, claim 8 includes additional elements. The additional elements are:
“[…], by one or more processors, […]”,
“[continuously updating], by the one or more processors, [… wherein] the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “[continuously updating …, wherein] the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”, the claim lacks technological details on how “the assigning of the verified status” automatically substantiates “one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
As to claim 1, the claim also recites the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The claim recites the additional elements of:
a “transaction verification system”,
“one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, facilitate”,
“[continuously updating …, wherein] the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “[continuously updating …, wherein] the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”, the claim lacks technological details on how “the assigning of the verified status” automatically substantiates “one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts”, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Hence, claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 recite “retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the healthcare account”, “adding each of the one or more transaction amounts to the total amount of authorized spending to compute a pending total” and “comparing the pending total to the spending limit associated with the healthcare account”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite “if the pending total exceeds the spending limit, updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite “retrieving copay data associated with the account holder”, “comparing the copay data with the transaction data”, “updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed if the copay data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 5 and 12 recite “retrieving payment history data associated with the payment account”, “comparing the payment history data with the transaction data”, “updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed if the payment history data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 recite “the healthcare account is one of a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA)”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 recite “retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the healthcare account”, “identifying at least one regular payment from the total amount of authorized spending”, “calculating a projected spending total based on the at least one regular payment and the total amount of authorized spending”, “comparing the projected spending total with the spending limit; and if the projected spending total exceeds the spending limit” and “updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “the assigning of the verified status further causes at least one of: re-activates a card inactivated for a lack of substantiation and stops any member request letters in queue” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the assigning of the verified status further causes at least one of: re-activates a card inactivated for a lack of substantiation and stops any member request letters in queue”, the claim lacks technological details on how “the assigning of the verified status” causes “re-activates a card” and “stops any member request letters”, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Furthermore, the claims lacks technological details on what “re-activates a card inactivated for a lack of substantiation ” and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). In addition, the claim lacks technological details on what “stops any member request letters in queue” comprises, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement verifying a tax advantaged savings account based payment transaction and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070038560 A1 (Ansley) in view of US 20080183627 A1 (Harrison).
As to claims 1 and 8,
Ansley teaches,
comparing, by the one or more processors (FIG. 1, item 110, para. 48), a spending limit associated with the healthcare account with each of the one or more transaction amounts (FIG. 10, item 1045, ¶ 94);
continuously updating, by the one or more processors, a record associated with the transaction data (FIG. 12, items 1240, 1245, ¶ 98) to indicate whether further verification is needed (FIG. 12, item 1250, ¶ 98), and as a result of a total out-of-pocket amount of one or more out-of-pocket transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts being greater than the spending limit associated with the healthcare account (para. 98, 102), assigning a verified status to the healthcare account (para. 98, 102), where the assigning of the verified status automatically substantiates one or more previously unsubstantiated transaction amounts of the one or more transaction amounts (para. 94, 98, 102).
Ansley does not teach,
receiving, by one or more processors, transaction data corresponding to one or more transactions between an account holder and one or more merchants, wherein the transaction data includes one or more transaction amounts and identifying information for the healthcare account of the account holder;
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the one or more merchants associated with the transaction data have been previously verified.
Harrison teaches,
receiving, by one or more processors (para. 87), transaction data corresponding to one or more transactions (FIG. 3A, item 306, ¶ 62) between an account holder (FIG. 2, item 202, ¶ 51) and one or more merchants (FIG. 2, item 204, ¶ 51), wherein the transaction data includes a transaction amount and identifying information for the healthcare account of the account holder (¶ 46);
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the one or more merchants associated with the transaction data has been previously verified (FIG. 3A, item 308, ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison because integrating existing transaction data feed improves healthcare transaction verification by providing “automation of the rebate/claims process thereby leading to a faster substantiation of claims and hence, improving customer satisfaction”, see Harrison, abstract.
Additionally, with respect to claim 1,
Ansley also teaches,
a transaction verification system (FIG. 1, item 100, ¶ 48),
one or more processors (FIG. 1, item 110, ¶ 48) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums (FIG. 1, item 155, ¶ 52) having processor-executable instructions stored (¶ 50) thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions (¶ 50), when executed by the one or more processors, facilitate (¶ 50).
As to claim 6 and 13, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Ansley also teaches,
the healthcare account is one of a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) (¶ 7).
Claims 2-5, 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansley in view of Harrison in further view of US 20050080692 A1 (Padam).
As to claims 2 and 9, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach,
retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the healthcare account,
adding each of the one or more transaction amounts to the total amount of authorized spending to compute a pending total, and
comparing the pending total to the spending limit associated with the healthcare account.
however, Padam teaches,
retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the healthcare account (¶ 43),
adding each of the one or more transaction amounts to the total amount of authorized spending to compute a pending total (FIG. 3, item 314, ¶ 43),
comparing the pending total to the spending limit associated with the healthcare account (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
As to claims 3 and 10, combination of Ansley, Harrison and Padam teach all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 8-9.
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach,
if the pending total exceeds the spending limit, updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed.
however, Padam teaches,
if the pending total exceeds the spending limit (FIG. 3, item 316, ¶ 44), updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed (¶ 46-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
As to claims 4 and 11, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach,
retrieving copay data associated with the account holder;
comparing the copay data with the transaction data;
updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed if the copay data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data.
however, Padam teaches,
retrieving copay data associated with the account holder (¶ 42);
comparing the copay data with the transaction data (FIG. 3, item 314, ¶ 43);
updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed (¶ 43) if the copay data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
As to claims 5 and 12, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach,
retrieving payment history data associated with the payment account;
comparing the payment history data with the transaction data;
updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed if the payment history data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data.
however, Padam teaches,
retrieving payment history data associated with the healthcare account (¶ 43);
comparing the payment history data with the transaction data (FIG. 3, item 314, ¶ 43);
updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate no further verification is needed (¶ 43) if the payment history data is within a certain threshold amount of the transaction data (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
As to claims 15 and 16, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Ansley teaches,
the assigning of the verified status further causes (para. 98, 102) at least one of: re-activates a card inactivated for a lack of substantiation (para. 68-69) and [stops any member request letters in queue].
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach,
[the assigning …] and stops any member request letters in queue.
however, Padam teaches,
[the assigning …] and stops any member request letters in queue (para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansley in view of Harrison in view of Padam in further view of US 20170178135 A1 (Bull).
As to claims 7 and 14, combination of Ansley and Harrison teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
combination of Ansley and Harrison do not teach.
retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the healthcare account;
identifying at least one regular payment from the total amount of authorized spending;
if the projected spending total exceeds the spending limit, updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed.
however, Padam teaches,
retrieving a total amount of authorized spending associated with the heatlhcare account (¶ 43);
identifying at least one regular payment from the total amount of authorized spending (¶ 55);
if the projected spending total exceeds the spending limit (¶ 43), updating the record associated with the transaction data to indicate that no further verification is needed (¶ 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam because spending limit verification improves healthcare transaction verification by automating third party administration of tax advantage accounts, see Padam, ¶ 12.
combination of Ansley, Harrison and Padam do not teach,
calculating a projected spending total based on the at least one regular payment and the total amount of authorized spending;
comparing the projected spending total with the spending limit;
however, Bull teaches,
calculating a projected spending total based on the at least one regular payment and the total amount of authorized spending (FIG. 16, item 1615, 1620, ¶ 636, 638);
comparing the projected spending total with the spending limit (FIG. 16, item 1635, ¶ 641).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine healthcare transaction verification system of Ansley with healthcare transaction data feed analysis system of Harrison with spending limit verification of Padam with health care spending projection system of Bull because spending projection improves healthcare transaction verification by determining “funds to allocate to the healthcare tax benefit account”, see Bull, ¶ 644.
Conclusion
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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached at 571-272-6709. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692