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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 10/15/2025, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claim 30 has been canceled.
Claims 1 – 29 are pending.
Priority
The instant invention claims a long priority claim including:
Continuation of application No. 17/938,931, filed on Sep. 6, 2022, now Pat. No. 11,830,052,
which is a continuation of application No. 17/543,723, filed on Dec. 6, 2021, now Pat. No. 11,475,498,
which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 17/411,494, filed on Aug. 25, 2021, now Pat. No. 11,315,160,
which is a continuation of application No. 17/209,117, filed on Mar. 22, 2021, now Pat. No. 11,170,423,
which is a continuation of application No. 16/913,662, filed on Jun. 26, 2020, now Pat. No. 10,991,021,
which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 16/685,888, filed on Nov. 15, 2019, now Pat. No. 11,030,666
The Examiner ends the priority claim here because he believes that the ‘662 in-part application included matter that does not have 112(a) support in the ‘888 application. Therefore, the Examiner believes that the priority date is 6/26/2020. The included matter includes the use of an electronic health record and a voucher.
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 – 29 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 29) which recite abstract idea steps of
receiving a message comprising a user payment for a bundled set of a plurality of selectively redeemable healthcare services comprising at least one dental service to be provided by a plurality of respective providers, wherein the received payment is pre-paid in an amount of a bundle price based on a location at which at least one selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services will be provided; and
in response to receiving the electronic comprising the user payment;
generating a health record comprising a purchase data record identified by and with a unique confirmation number;
presetting an initial individual redemption status in the purchase data record for each selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services as purchased and unredeemed; and
providing user access to the purchase data record to receive each selectively redeemable healthcare service of the plurality of healthcare services.
wherein:
the at least one dental service is determined in response to a patient lifecycle event determined for a patient based on updated dental data for the patient received in a Health Record,
the updated dental data comprises tooth condition data for the patient,
the patient lifecycle event determination is based on the output of an algorithm trained with patient data, wherein the output of the algorithm is based on a comparison of the tooth condition data with archived tooth condition data for the patient, and
the at least one dental service is determined based on the updated dental data.
The Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. The initial claimed invention followed the path of figure 11.
These steps of claims 1 – 29, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor language, receiving a message in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of generating a health record, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor language, providing user access in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant has chosen particular language following the newly amended “wherein” clause. The clause defines the data received in the first limitation. “receiving … comprising at least one dental service to be provided…” The Examiner notes that one of the broadest reasonable understanding is that the limitations following the “wherein” are extra-solution activity. That is, the wherein clause defines the data received but that data could have been performed before the execution of the claimed invention. The variables “patient lifecycle event,” “updated dental data,” “EHR,” “tooth condition data,” and “patient data,” only appear within this particular wherein clause. Note further that the statements are passively performed “is determined” to show the time independence of these limitations. However, for the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner continues examining these limitations as if they were positively claimed and positively performed.
Regarding “machine learning,” the Specification’s open description of what could be included has been broadly understood to include decision trees. A decision tree could be performed in the mind or with the aid of a pencil and paper.
These steps of claims 1 – 29, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. As stated in the Specification which mirrors the claim language as a whole
[0008] Herein presented is an apparatus and associated methods for presenting users a selection of at least one bundled set of healthcare services provided discretely and/or individually by a plurality of respective providers, determining a bundle price for the bundled set of healthcare services, receiving payment for the user selected bundled set, generating a purchase data record selectively redeemable by the user to receive each of the bundled healthcare services in the bundled set, transmitting a unique confirmation number generated for the purchase data record to track the redemption status of the purchase data record, disbursing payment allocated from the received payment to the plurality of respective providers and updating the redemption status of the purchase data record as each of the plurality of services of the bundled set are redeemed. The bundle price may be based on the user's health insurance deductible as well as the location and/or time at which the bundled set of services will be provided. The purchase data record may be a voucher.
The invention is both commercial interaction (a voucher for services) and also the interaction of a user with a computer. The invention applies the abstract idea to technology to achieve all the benefits of applying the abstract idea to the technology. The invention uses existing technology and does not represent a technological solution to a technical problem.
It should be emphasized that “using the processor” does not state or describe how the processor is used. The breadth of “using” includes using the processor as a stand for paper or a heater in a cold room.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 29, reciting particular aspects of how bundling may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of using a processor amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving an electronic message amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of providing access, storing the electronic health record, or sending the electronic health record amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 29, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). 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 improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 29; receiving an electronic message, generating an electronic health record, presetting an individual redemption status, providing user access, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements
Processor – paragraph 50, In exemplary embodiments, the computer systems of client systems 140 can be any of a wide range of suitable computing devices such as one or more…
network -paragraph 42 In exemplary embodiments, network 150 can be configured to facilitate communications between server sys tern 110 and client systems 140, as well as communications with and between other devices and computers connected together within marketplace system 100, by any suitable wired (including optical fiber), wireless technology, or any suitable combination thereof, including, but not limited to…
virtual payment system – It should be emphasized that the Specification does not define the “virtual funds” or a virtual payment system. Therefore, based upon the Specification, the Examiner understands this to be an Internet bank such as PayPal. paragraphs 87, 91 The payment information input by the user may be an instruction to use the billing information included within the respective account information record established for the user within customer profile database 114a or submission of alternative payment information such as, for example, bank account information, credit or debit card information, or other electronic payment information ( such as information for utilizing an account the user has with PayPal or any another entity facilitating payments and money transfers to be made through the Internet.
Machine learning – paragraph 46, “Any machine-learning algorithm 15 can be employed, such as neural networks, expert systems, Bayesian belief networks, fuzzy logic, data fusion engines and the like.”
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 29, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, payment is disbursed, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). 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 improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchel et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2018/ 0260870 in view of Ketchel et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2019/ 03355036 and McClain et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0295448.
The inventors of Ketchel ‘870 and Ketchel ‘036 are the same.
As per claim 1,
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method comprising:
receiving an electronic message comprising a user payment for a bundled set of a plurality of selectively redeemable healthcare services (abstract)
wherein the received payment is pre-paid in an amount of a bundle price based on a location at which at least one selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services will be provided, using a processor (Abstract for geographic zone pricing, paragraphs 31, 52 pre-paid) ; and
in response to receiving the electronic message comprising the user payment (paragraphs 50 – 52),
generating an electronic record comprising a purchase data record identified by and with a unique confirmation number, using the processor (paragraph 61, transaction information database- unique transaction identifier that is used by application server 116 to uniquely identify the information record for the purchase of the service or product within the system);
presetting an initial individual redemption status in the purchase data record for each selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services as purchased and unredeemed, using the processor (paragraphs 118, 127, 128 redemption status); and
providing user access to the purchase data record to receive each selectively redeemable healthcare service of the plurality of healthcare services, using the processor (paragraph 127 voucher history page).
wherein:
the at least one health service is determined by the processor in response to a patient lifecycle event determined for a patient based on updated health data for the patient received in an Electronic Health Record (EHR) (Abstract, service detail within information record and paragraphs 48 and 49 program or data structure that tracts …),
the updated health data comprises health condition data for the patient (paragraph 49 profile database),
Ketchel ‘870 does not explicitly teach the method comprising:
receiving an electronic message comprising a user payment for a bundled set of a plurality of selectively redeemable healthcare services
comprising at least one dental service to be provided by a plurality of respective providers,
wherein the received payment is pre-paid in an amount of a bundle price based on a location at which at least one selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services will be provided, using a processor; and
in response to receiving the electronic message comprising the user payment,
generating an electronic health record comprising a purchase data record identified by and with a unique confirmation number, using the processor;
wherein:
the at least one dental service is determined by the processor in response to a patient lifecycle event determined for a patient based on updated dental data for the patient received in an Electronic Health Record (EHR),
the updated dental data comprises health condition data for the patient,
the patient lifecycle event determination is based on the output of a machine learning model trained with patient data, wherein the output of the machine learning model is based on a comparison of the tooth condition data with archived tooth condition data for the patient, and
the at least one dental service is determined by the processor based on the updated dental data.
However, Ketchel ‘036 further teaches the method comprising:
wherein:
the patient lifecycle event determination is based on the output of a machine learning model trained with patient data, wherein the output of the machine learning model is based on a comparison of the health condition data with archived condition data for the patient (paragraphs 26, 30, and 80 history data), and
the at least one health service is determined by the processor based on the updated health data (paragraphs 55 – 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Ketchel ‘870. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Ketchel ‘870 with the motivation to provide healthcare service providers and pharmacies with a mechanism to remotely offer healthcare services and products to prospective patients (Ketchel ‘036, paragraph 22).
Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 do not explicitly teach the method comprising:
receiving an electronic message comprising a user payment for a bundled set of a plurality of selectively redeemable healthcare services
comprising at least one dental service to be provided by a plurality of respective providers,
wherein the received payment is pre-paid in an amount of a bundle price based on a location at which at least one selectively redeemable healthcare service of the bundled set of healthcare services will be provided, using a processor; and
in response to receiving the electronic message comprising the user payment,
generating an electronic dental record comprising a purchase data record identified by and with a unique confirmation number, using the processor;
wherein:
the at least one dental service is determined by the processor in response to a patient lifecycle event determined for a patient based on updated dental data for the patient received in an Electronic Health Record (EHR),
the updated dental data comprises health condition data for the patient,
the patient lifecycle event determination is based on the output of a machine learning model trained with patient data, wherein the output of the machine learning model is based on a comparison of the tooth condition data with archived tooth condition data for the patient, and
the at least one dental service is determined by the processor based on the updated dental data.
However, McClain further teaches the method comprising:
receiving an electronic message comprising a user payment for a bundled set of a plurality of selectively redeemable healthcare services
comprising at least one dental service to be provided by a plurality of respective providers (paragraph 31 It should be emphasized that this service is not performed and regards a statement of intended use.),
in response to receiving the electronic message comprising the user payment,
generating an electronic health record, using the processor (paragraph 78 EHR);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Ketchel ‘870 and Ketchel ‘036 . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Ketchel ‘870 and Ketchel ‘036 with the motivation to identify eligibility and contribution level for services and/or products (McClain, Abstract).
Further, the Examiner notes that the description applied to the services, the received amounts, and the databases are all data labels. Substituting one data label for another data label produces the same result with just the data labels differing. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to substitute one label for another data label. The process of substituting labels was know and the results are predictable.
As per claim 2, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method comprising:
wherein in response to receiving the electronic message comprising the user payment using the processor, the method further comprises:
storing the electronic record in a memory operably coupled with the processor, using the processor (paragraph 12); and
sending the electronic record to at least one provider of the plurality of respective providers, using the processor (paragraph 85).
It would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the electronic record with McClain electronic health record for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 3, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method comprising wherein the method further comprises sending the unique confirmation number to the user, using the processor (paragraph 116).
As per claim 4, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method 4 wherein the received payment comprises real currency (paragraph 96, bank information).
As per claim 5, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method comprising wherein the received payment comprises virtual funds (paragraph 96 PayPal).
As per claim 6, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 5 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the received virtual funds payment further comprises promotional credit (paragraph negotiated or contracted commission fee – the claim does not state who receives the credit).
As per claim 7, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the method further comprises creating a virtual funds account for the user, using the processor (PayPal).
As per claim 8, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 7 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the received payment is received from the virtual funds account created for the user, using the processor (paragraph 102 via the internet).
As per claim 9, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the method further comprises disbursing payment to at least one of the plurality of respective providers, using the processor (paragraph 150).
As per claim 10, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 9 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective providers to which payment is disbursed further comprises at least one of a physician, a dentist, an orthodontist, a periodontist, an oral surgeon, a radiologist, an anesthesiologist, a dental hygienist, a practice group, a hospital, a facility, or an insurer (paragraph 148 physician).
As per claim 11, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 9 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method
wherein the disbursed payment comprises a plurality of payments allocated from the received payment (paragraph 56 payments for services),
wherein the method further comprises the plurality of payments is disbursed to each of the plurality of respective providers, using the processor (paragraph 56).
As per claim 12, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 further teaches a method
wherein the user has a health insurance policy having a health insurance deductible (paragraph 56) and
Ketchel ‘870 does not explicitly teach however, McClain further teaches a method
wherein the method further comprises applying an amount of the received payment to the health insurance deductible, using the processor (paragraph 137 business logic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Ketchel ‘870 for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 13, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 does not explicitly teach however, McClain further teaches a method
wherein the method further comprises the amount of the received payment applied to the health insurance deductible is determined as a function of the health insurance policy, using the processor (paragraph 137 business logic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Ketchel ‘870 for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 14, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 12 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the method further comprises setting the bundle price based on the health insurance deductible, using the processor (paragraph 4 where the Specification does not disclose the actual calculation).
As per claim 15, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method
wherein the purchase data record persists in a data store operably coupled with the processor (paragraph 141) and
wherein the purchases data record is redeemable using the processor until each of the plurality of healthcare services in the bundled set is redeemed (paragraph 141).
As per claim 16, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the method further comprises:
presenting to the user a plurality of healthcare services, using the processor (abstract, bundled), wherein the
plurality of healthcare services comprise at least one bundled set of the plurality of healthcare services to be performed separately by the plurality of respective providers (abstract), and
receiving an indication, using the processor, of at least one bundled set of healthcare services selected by the user, wherein the bundle price is further determined by the processor based on a time at which at least one of the plurality of services will be provided (figures 4A and 4B).
As per claim 17, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the at least one bundled set further comprises a drug (figure 4B anesthesia).
As per claim 18, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method
wherein the at least one bundled set of healthcare services further comprises a primary service and a secondary service associated with the primary service (paragraph 56), and
wherein the received payment further comprises payment for the secondary service (paragraph 58).
As per claim 19, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the purchase data record is the electronic health record (paragraph 141).
Please see above regarding the “health” record.
As per claim 20, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 19 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 teaches a method wherein the purchase data record is selectively redeemable for each healthcare service individually, using the processor (paragraph 141).
As per claim 21 – 29, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain do not explicitly teach the method wherein the at least one dental service further comprises
cleaning or examination or extraction or restoration or related to surgery or a service related to braces or orthodontal services or periodontal services or imaging.
However, the particular service describes both an intended event and if actually performed it is outside the claimed invention. Therefore, as argued above in claim 1, the service descriptions are labels applied to the service. Replacing one label with another label produces the same functional result. Just the label applied to the service varies. Therefore, as above within claim 1, this is prima facie obvious.
As per claim 29, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain teaches the method of claim 1 as describe above.
Ketchel ‘870 does teach the method wherein a service is selected (paragraph 62, 66).
However, Ketchel ‘870 in view of Ketchel ‘036 and McClain do not explicitly teach the method wherein at least one dental service determined in response to a patient lifecycle event detected as a function of updated dental data received in an Electronic Health Record (EHR), using the processor (It should be noted that first the Specification never says what a patient lifecycle event is or must be. There are no descriptions of potential patient lifecycle events. Second, there is no description of how the unknown patient lifecycle events are used to determine a response. That response could be a dental service or any value with a label. The value is not performed. Therefore, the claim as understood makes an unknown determination by way of an unknown event. This could be a manual action, a lifecycle event, by a user.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under § 103
The Applicant states, “At least the above-highlighted limitations are not taught by the references.” Please see the updated rejection above.
Rejection Under § 101
The Applicant states, “Amended claim 1 is analogous to claim 3 of example 47 of the USPTO's July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples ("July 2024 Examples").1 USPTO Example 47 relates to network intrusion detection…” The Examiner notes that the instant invention is related “to presenting for selection services comprising at least one bundled set of healthcare services to be performed separately by respective providers” (Abstract of the instant invention). How this is “analogous” is not clear.
The Applicant states, “In the present application, similarly, even if amended claim 1 is considered to be directed to a mental process, the claim is nonetheless patent eligible by analogy to example claim 3 above.” First, the Examiner cannot understand the analogy. The Example describes a technological improvement. The instant claim applies technology to the abstract idea to obtain the benefits of applying the abstract idea to technology. Second, the instant invention does not require specific technology and therefore the Examiner, understanding the claim as a whole in light of the Specification, still believes that the abstract idea is a mental process.
The Applicant further states, “For instance, amended claim 1 recites that a computer processor determines the claimed dental service in response to a patient lifecycle event, which itself is determined as the output of a machine learning model.” That is not claimed. The claim limitation is, “the patient lifecycle event determination is based on the output of a machine learning.” The algorithm for converting the output to a lifecycle event is unknown.
The Applicant further states, “That is, the claim is directed to a practical application in which a machine learning model (analogous to the ANN in example claim 3) is utilized to improve the functioning of a technical field, i. e. , the technical field of medical diagnostics-analogous to the improvements in network intrusion detection for example claim 3.” The particular machine learning model is not claimed. The instant invention further does not disclose or use a particular “training algorithm” as in Claim 3. The instant invention further does not detect “one or more anomalies.” The result of the instant invention is data that has a potential application and not a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ketchel, III et al US 2016/0253731 An apparatus for facilitating purchases of services and products includes an application server
De Massari et al US 2020/0312443 Example embodiments include a method for managing healthcare services including receiving information selecting an episode of care
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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626