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 do not recite a method of organizing human activity but fails to present a supporting argument for this assertion. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot.
Applicant argues the claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. The specification discloses that the use of bitwise rules matching allows for rapid, and relatively computationally cheap, identification and application of pricing rules and therefore improves the accuracy and efficiency of the computer itself, as compared to conventional systems.
The Office has reviewed the specification at least at 0044 – 0069 and finds that the invention is directed towards applying specific sets of rules. The application of these rule sets is not inextricably tied to the use of a computer, in fact, 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: providing input data to a machine learning model configured to parse the data to obtain a first plurality of rules relating to a purchase of a medical item; generating a bitwise specificity score for each of the first plurality of rules, based on setting one or more bit values in each bitwise specificity score using matching criteria between a respective rule and the purchase; and generating a user interface for displaying information related to purchasing the first medical item according to a first rule of the first plurality of rules that is selected based on the bitwise specificity scores.
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 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
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