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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are directed to a specific computational technique for encoding and comparing rule applicability. The claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The particular data structure and technique meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
The Office asserts that generating and selecting rules is an abstract idea. The claims reflect one method of doing this by using a computer. The applicant does not state how the computer improves the process of generating and selecting rules but generally states that tit is an improved method or integrates the abstract idea into a practical application in some way other than the general assertion given.
The Office asserts that the computer is merely a tool for calculating the specificity score more rapidly and efficiently, however, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
parsing a structured electronic data representation of a contract to generate a plurality of machine-executable rules stored in a rule repository;
selecting a first machine-executable rule, of the plurality of machine-executable rules, stored in the rule repository to apply to a request to purchase a medical item, the selecting comprising:
generating a bitwise-encoded specificity score for each of the plurality of rules, wherein:
each bitwise-encoded specificity score comprises a fixed-length bit vector having a plurality of bit positions corresponding to respective matching criteria, and
the generating comprises setting, using a deterministic bitwise- encoding scheme, individual bit values in each respective fixed-length bit vector based on evaluation of the match criteria; and
comparing, using a bitwise comparison operation that prioritizes higher- order bit positions over lower-order bit positions, the bitwise-encoded specificity scores for the plurality of rules to select the first rule; and
retrieving, from the rule repository, data associated with the first rule.
The underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, sales activities because he claims are directed to determining a rule for facilitating the purchase of a medical item.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims include the additional elements comprising electronic contract data, machine-executable rules, a rules repository, and a computer-implemented method of comparing bitwise-encoded specificity scores, amounting to adding the words “apply it”, or the like.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims comprise only the abstract idea with the words “apply it”.
Claims 11 and 16 are similar but are directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium, both including a memory and a processor for executing the process. Again, the claims recite the abstract idea with the words “apply it”.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea by including further limitations about the specificity score and bit values in claims 2-5 for example. Claim 6 relates to the purchase of a second medical item, claim 9 includes a storage repository which adds the words “apply it”. The remaining dependent claims are similarly rejected for including similar material which merely narrows the abstract idea or adds the words “apply it”.
As a whole, and in combination the claims represent an abstract idea with the words “apply it” and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights