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 the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on November 3, 2023 for the application filed November 3, 2023 which claims priority to a provisional application filed on November 28, 2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1:
Under step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-14 are directed towards a computer-implemented method (i.e. a process), which is a statutory category. Claims 15-18 are directed towards a system (i.e. a machine), which is a statutory category. Claims 19-20 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture), which is a statutory category. Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under step 2A, prong one of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, independent claims 1, 15 and 19 are determined to be directed to an judicial exception because an abstract idea is recited in the claims which fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas. The abstract idea (identified in bold) recited in the representative claim 1 is identified as:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a first computing system, a first set of data;
determining, by the one or more processors, a buffering period based at least in part on historical latency in communicating data between the first computing system and a second computing system;
queuing, by the one or more processors, the first set of data with the buffering period for delayed processing of the first set of data;
receiving, by the one or more processors and from the second computing system, a second set of data prior to expiration of the buffering period; and
initiating, by the one or more processors, processing of the first set of data in view of the second set of data.
The identified limitations fall within the subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity related and the sub grouping commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations) and fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). The identified limitations are a method for delayed processing of data and data submission time limits which are fundamental economic practices. For example, businesses utilize deliberate delayed processing to ensure data completeness, accuracy, and reliability before analysis and business such as insurance providers rely on submission time limits when processing insurance claims. Merely determining the time limit/buffer period based on historical latency in communicating data rather than set time limits (i.e. per insurance provider or state) does not take the claims out of the abstract idea. The receiving of first and second data and initiating processing of data received within the buffer period is also the business relation of processing an insurance claim with the relation being the relationship between the first computer system (i.e. insurance provider) submitting the data and the second computer system (healthcare provider) processing the data.
The identified limitations of “determining a buffering period based at least in part on historical latency in communicating data”, “queuing the first set of data with the buffering period for delayed processing of the first set of data” and “initiating processing of the first set of data in view of the second set of data” fall within the subject matter grouping of mental processes. Making determinations based on historical data, queuing data for processing and initiating processing can be performed mentally, with or without the use of pen and paper using observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 15 and 19 recite an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under step 2A, prong two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the identified abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. After evaluation, there is no indication that any additional elements or combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as through: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvements to any other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element that implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception in connection with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As shown below, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than a recitation of: generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as evidenced below.
The additional elements recited in representative claim 1 are identified in italics as:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a first computing system, a first set of data;
determining, by the one or more processors, a buffering period based at least in part on historical latency in communicating data between the first computing system and a second computing system;
queuing, by the one or more processors, the first set of data with the buffering period for delayed processing of the first set of data;
receiving, by the one or more processors and from the second computing system, a second set of data prior to expiration of the buffering period; and
initiating, by the one or more processors, processing of the first set of data in view of the second set of data.
The additional limitations of “computer-implemented”, by the one or more processors”, “a first computing system” and “a second computing system” are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f). The processors and computer systems are recited at a high level of generality are recited at a high level of generality without any details as to how the processors and computer systems perform the identified limitations of the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 15 and 19 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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 limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f), which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. None of these limitations are deemed to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as detailed below identifying the limitations directed to an abstract idea in bold and the additional limitations in italics.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first set of data comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more databases for data associated with one or more users and historical communication data between the first computing system and the second computing system.
Querying data is determinized to be both a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process. Furthermore, querying data can be considered no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere necessary data to the judicial exception under MPEP §2106.05(g), which is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d), subsection II. The “by the one or more processors” “one or more databases” and “between the first computing system and the second computing system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more databases are queried upon determining the data associated with the one or more users registered with a resource is not received from the second computing system within a pre-determined time period.
Querying data upon a determined criteria is determined to be both a human activity and mental. The “one or more databases” and “from the second computing system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining the buffering period comprises:
processing, by the one or more processors, the data associated with the one or more users to determine an active period for the resource and a coordination period for the resource; and
processing, by the one or more processors, the historical communication data between the first computing system and the second computing system to determine the historical latency in communicating data, wherein the historical latency includes a delay in communicating a notification pertaining to the one or more users registered with the resource.
The processing data to determine an active period, coordination period and historical latency limitations are determine to be directed to a mental process. The “by the one or more processors” and “between the first computing system and the second computing system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the data associated with the one or more users includes transaction reply reports and/or claims data.
Merely specifying the data is encompassed by the abstract idea.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the active period is a duration the one or more users are covered by the resource.
Merely specifying the determined active period is encompassed by the abstract idea.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the coordination period identifies primacy between a first payer sub-system and a second payer sub-system.
Merely specifying the determined coordination period is encompassed by the abstract idea. The “sub system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: applying, by the one or more processors, one or more rules to the data associated with the one or more users to identify at least one of the one or more users that is within coverage during the coordination period for the resource, wherein the buffering period is determined for the identified at least one user.
The applying of rules to identify users within a coverage period is determined to be both a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The “by the one or more processors” additional limitation is determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the delay in communicating the notification is determined by: calculating, by the one or more processors, an average delay in transmitting the notification by the second computing system to the first computing system.
The calculating of an average delay in transmitting a notification is determined to be directed to a mental process. The “by the one or more processors” and “by the second computing system to the first computing system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein determining the buffering period for the resource further comprises: extending, by the one or more processors, the coordination period for the resource by a time period equivalent to the average delay in transmitting the notification by the second computing system to the first computing system.
Determining the buffer period by extending the coordination period by the determined average delay is determined to be directed to a mental process. The “by the one or more processors” and “by the second computing system to the first computing system” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the buffering period for the resource remains modifiable until a true notification revokes the buffering period or an occurrence of a true break in coverage by the resource.
Making the buffer period modifiable until conditions are met is determined to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, such a business relations and the mental process of determining when conditions are met to modify or not modify the buffer period.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: applying, by the one or more processors, one or more logics to determine primacy between one or more payer sub-systems during at least one of the active period, the coordination period, or the buffering period.
The applying logics to determine primacy between payers during the periods is determined to be the fundamental economic practice of coordination of benefits and a mental process. The “by the one or more processors” and “sub-systems” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: causing to display, by the one or more processors, a presentation of a report in a user interface of a device, wherein the report includes at least one of the active period, the coordination period, or the buffering period.
The presentation of a report is determined to be a business relation. The use of a “display”, “by the one or more processors” and “in a user interface of a device” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the active period represents a first time period the resource is covered by a first payer sub-system, wherein the coordination period represents a second time period the resource is covered by the first payer sub-system or a second payer sub-system, and wherein the buffering period represents a third time period the resource is covered by the first payer sub-system in anticipation of the notification.
Merely defining the periods is encompassed by the abstract idea. The “sub-systems” additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(f).
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
The closest prior art record does not appear to explicitly disclose, teach or suggest determining a buffering period based at least in part on historical latency in communicating data; queuing the first set of data with the buffering period for delayed processing of the first set of data; receiving, a second set of data prior to expiration of the buffering period; and initiating processing of the first set of data in view of the second set of data, as the ordered combination recited in claims 1, 15 and 19.
Regarding the closest prior art:
Skelton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0006724) discloses receiving a request for medical fulfillment from a requestor system, queuing the request, receiving additional data and processing the request in view of the additional data. The queue may implement a delay before processing the request.
Loicono et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0075215) discloses buffering electronic prescription orders for an specified amount of time based on conditions before processing the prescription. The prescriptions expire after the amount of time.
Carroll (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0295286) discloses a financial transaction processing system which receives a transfer request and queues the request until a handshake signal is received within a cut-off time threshold determined based on average wait times associated with receiving handshake signals from computing platforms.
Kapur et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0278501) discloses a system and method of facilitating the coordination of benefits for a plurality of health plans.
Zahora et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0317260) discloses a medical claims analytical platform which identified incomplete claims, queues and holds claims for time periods and using analytics to analyze patterns and trends such as time from claim submission to reimbursement.
Stroede et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0214931) discloses a system and method processing claims based on primacy and supplementary policies.
Nieten et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0115105) discloses a system which determines expected delays for submitting data/completing tasks needed for prescription fulfillment based on historical data in order to processing/finalizing an order for fulfillment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devin C. Hein whose telephone number is (303)297-4305. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM M-F MDT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights