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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 01/29/2026 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 29 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in this instant application per RCE claim amendments filed on 01/29/2026, wherein only both independent Claims 1 & 7 have been amended. Claims 1 and 7 are two independent claims reciting method and system claims. Claims 2-6/14/16 and 8-13/15/17 are dependent on said two independent claims respectively.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to RCE claim amendments filed by Applicant on 29 JANUARY 2026 for its original application of 23 JANUARY 2024 that is titled: “Method and System for Automated Data Ingestion in a Real-Time”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-17 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in the RCE on 01/29/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 and 7 are independent method and system claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1--YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method for automatically and dynamically ingesting healthcare data in real time, the method comprising: identifying an ingestion data pattern for an ingestion table adapted to ingest the input healthcare data on a basis of a plurality of historical claims data, wherein the plurality of historical claims data are stored in multiple data formats; generating one or more mapping codes on a basis of identified data-patterns to automate mapping of the ingested historical claims data; and ingesting the input healthcare data in accordance with the identified data pattern by using the generated one or more mapping codes, and the ingested data is monitored to validate a mapping of the input healthcare data within the ingestion table. In other words, the claim describes methods (and systems) for automatically and dynamically ingesting healthcare data from a plurality of data sources into a single unified ingestion database, in a real-time include a plurality of client computing devices for capturing healthcare data of a patient (see Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (at least per -- claims data file has to be processed for billing and payment reimbursements purposes from insurance companies in para [0004] of Specification), and/or commercial or legal interactions and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (at least per --- insurance claims data submitted to medical insurance companies by healthcare providers and/or patients insured by a particular medical insurance company in various paras of the Specification), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (at least per --- predefine one or more rules and/or schema …… and combining the identified rules and/or schemas in para [0019] of Specification), but for the recitation of generic processor and/or computer component/s such as central server, client computer/s, module/s and sub-module/s. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1--YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: receiving, at a central server, an input healthcare data from one or more client computers connected thereto; the mapping codes comprising a table mapper sub-module, a column mapper sub-module, and a row mapper sub-module, wherein the table mapper sub-module is configured to filter the identified data pattern, and wherein the column mapper sub-module is configured to identify one or more columns within the filtered identified data pattern. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The server/s, client computer/s, module/s and sub-module/s in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data (as described above). These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic processor/s and/or computing device/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2--NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim of: receiving, at a central server, an input healthcare data from one or more client computers connected thereto; the mapping codes comprising a table mapper sub-module, a column mapper sub-module, and a row mapper sub-module; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic processor/s and/or computing device/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic processor/s and/or computing device/s over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these processor/s and/ or computing device/s are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, the Applicant’s own Specification (PG Pub. No. US 2025/ 0014112 of 09 JAN 2025) does not describe specific details in paras [0056]-[0058] and [0067]-[0069] as copied below; and thus, these elements don’t describe a “new technology solution”, but these elements are well-understood and conventional at least as described in exemplary paras below ---
{“[0056] FIG. 3 illustrates a flow chart of a method of automatically ingesting the input healthcare data within the unified database 150 in real time, according to the present disclosure. The method starts at step 302 where an input healthcare data is received at the central server 120 from one or more of the client computing devices 105. The method then proceeds to step 304. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0057] At step 304, the ingestion module 124a identifies an ingestion data pattern for the ingestion data table. The received data sets are ingested within the unified ingestion data table according to the ingestion data pattern. The process of identifying the ingestion data-pattern is described in method 400, utilizing the historical claim data sets/decision data sets 167, received from the plurality of data sources 102. ………………………………………………………………………………
[0058] Once the data-pattern is identified at step 304, the method then proceeds to step 306 where one or more mapping codes are determined based on the identified data pattern. The mapping codes are used to configure and/or upgrade the mapper submodules, namely the table mapper submodule, the column mapper submodule, and the row mapper submodules, wherein one or more rules for tables and schema are predefined. The schema is configured based on one or more predefined rules and/or the plurality of historical claims data. The schema substantially includes various possible measures required for providing quick mapping of claims data being received from different data sources 102 in different formats. …………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0067] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure subject matter, the validation module 124c validates the data mapping results generated by the ingested module 124a. The validation module 124c also monitors each of the one or more rows of adjudicating present claims data to identify how the associated values are repeating or changing on a periodic basis. There may be claims data files that are received every month. The claims data may contain unique identity information represented by a ‘claimID’ for a particular patient or healthcare service provider. Every month, for each unique ‘claimID’, there may be received row values against the several columns. In some scenarios, overwriting of row values is performed by replacing older months’ data with latest records. In other cases, however, overwriting of data is not needed and all the records are to be maintained. The validation module 124c checks the row values on a per claimID-basis to identify whether the previous data or values must be retained or overwritten based on the claims data pattern. ………………………………………………….
[0068] The validation module 124c takes the claims data pattern of any unknown data source and further updates the Validation schema module 134e, which acts as a feedback loop for improving the validation accuracy of the system over time. The system is designed in such a way that for every mapping that happens through the system, flows back to the global knowledge-base, which ultimately acts as a feedback loop for improving the accuracy of the system. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0069] According to an embodiment, the system 100 is exemplified with a client architecture system where the central server 120 may be in the form of a mobile application. The mobile application in such instances, includes a front-end user interface that can run off a standard web-browser on desktop environments, or a mobile based smartphone or tablet versions (for Android and iOS); and a backend server 140 which can be a lightweight workstation machine that will collect and process the datasets received from one or more central servers 120.”} ---
and indicate that the concept/s described by extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B--NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 7, which perform the steps similar to those of independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-6, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the input healthcare data comprises insurance claim data; providing an initial training data within the ingestion table;……; performing a first level check to identify similarities in table names;……; wherein each of the initial training data and the plurality of historical claims data stored within the plurality of data sources comprises historical insurance claim data stored in multiple data formats; the cloud server communicatively connected to a plurality of ingestion modules of a plurality of central servers; wherein the table mapper sub-module uses text similarity, distancing algorithms, and metadata-based analysis based on table names and dictionaries created using historical mappings; wherein the column mapper sub-module uses frequency distribution, word embeddings, outlier detection, knowledge-based similarity, and string-based similarity for values present inside input columns; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 8-13/15/17 also further narrow its independent system Claim 11, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE remarks (on pages 7-17) and claim amendments dated 29 JANUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-17 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-17, as described above, is being maintained under 35 USC 101 herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s RCE remarks and claim amendments.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments of 01/29/2026 arguing similarity to Ex Parte Donovan, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the case of Ex Parte Donovan involved a patent application related to a method for diagnosing and predicting a response to breast cancer therapy by measuring multiple biomarkers and feeding the measurements into a machine-learning model. PTAB found that the claims satisfied the Alice test at Step 2A, Prong Two, because they integrated the judicial exception into a practical application, requiring not only observing and measuring biomarkers, but also using specific hardware and a machine-learning application to generate an effective treatment model. However, the instant application does not recite any claim limitations about diagnosis nor treatment of any disease, nor are treating &/or treatment recited in the Specification.
In response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments of 01/29/2026 arguing similarity to Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Intl., Examiner respectfully disagrees. Viewed as a whole, these additional generic computer claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner notes that “The introduction of a computer and/or by a processor to implement an abstract idea or mathematical principle is not a patentable application of the abstract idea” --- Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357--2358, citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 594.
In further response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments 01/29/2026 about Office’s Example 39 and Example 42, Examiner maintains the responses in paras 17. and 18. hereunder respectively. In further response, Applicant has also argued on 01/29/2026 with respect to Example 42 that {“ Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user" (emphasis added).”}, Examiner notes that the instant application’s claims listing of 01/29/2026 does not explicitly recite:-- “one format”, “single format”, “same format”, “singular format”, “similar format”, “one schema”, “single schema”, “same schema”, “singular schema”, or “similar schema”; as was done in Example 42. Additionally, Example 42 clearly provided that “{the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.”}.
In additional response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments of 01/29/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments that the instant application is similar to Ex Parte Desjardins argued as -- {“ The specification of the application as filed describes, "[c]onventionally, the claims data is examined manually and are therefore prone to errors resulting in incorrect results while performing analytics on such data. A solution to eliminate the manual process of claims data inspection is to provide a computer-implemented mapping process wherein data is ingested and mapped to a given schema for inspection. However, such a solution requires the claims data to be supplied in a standard format and hence, lacks the capability of handling claims data having different data formats." Para. [0005].”}. Examiner notes that in Ex Parte Desjardins, it was found --- {“The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification.”}. However, the instant application’s Specification does not recite nor support limitations of “reduced processor capacity” and/or “reduced memory capacity” as claimed by the Applicant -- but these are also not supported by Specification. It is noted by Examiner that the Specification does not support sub-phrases reciting “less processor capacity” and “less memory capacity”, and Specification has no support for the phrases from the Ex Parte Desjardins findings about “reduced storage”, “reduced system complexity” and “streamlining”, and the Specification does not support “system complexity” nor “complexity” nor “less storage”.
Applicant further references Example 39 of the October 2019 PTO guidance as further supporting the Applicant’s position traversing 101 rejection in its arguments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. And in particular, Applicant asserts that --- {“For instance, receiving, at a server, an input healthcare data from one or more client computers where an ingestion data pattern is identified for an ingestion table adapted to ingest the input healthcare data on a basis of a plurality of historical claims data.”} --- and Examiner respectfully disagrees with it, and notes that the addition of more enhancements using “mapping sub-modules” is not akin to the claim in Example 39. Further, Examiner clarifies that said claim in Example 39 recites use of training a neural network for facial detection, while the instant application’s claims don’t recite “a neural network”. Rather, said claim in Example 39 was found eligible to overcome 101 rejection, because that claim “does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations”; and “while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims”. Further, said claim “does not recite a mental process, because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind”. Finally, said claim “does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people.” Thus, said claim in Example 39 does not apply to the instant application’s Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments citing similarity to Example 42 is non-persuasive, because the claims at issue in Example 42 are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In Example 42, Claim 1 the claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed does not make it less abstract.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on …… a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
Examiner notes that upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent claim 1 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” and “commercial . . . interactions” and “managing personal behavior . . .”. Independent claim 1 has --- {identifying an ingestion data pattern for an ingestion table adapted to ingest the input healthcare data on a basis of a plurality of historical claims data; generating one or more mapping codes on a basis of identified data-patterns;…}. Together these steps simply provide a user input through an interface and generate selections based on user inputs. Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for trading financial instruments” recited in exemplary independent claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Accordingly, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent method claim 1, as amended, recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. In the instant application, Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, including claim amendments of 09/18/2025, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor (device) limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor (device) performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application. Examiner maintains the conclusion above under Step 2B, where it was shown “that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner PSA, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
18 APRIL 2026
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights