CTFR 18/532,994 CTFR 85006 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-10 and newly added claims 21-30 has been reviewed and are addressed below. Claims 11-20 has been cancelled. Response to Arguments/Amendments Applicant’s amendments filed on 1-30-26 has been entered and are addressed below. Applicant argues that the claim do not cover mental process examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of computer components such as internet, AI system, etc are computer components used to execute the abstract idea which in this case is to generate a bill based on questionnaires answered by a user. The gathering and analyzing the data and presenting it in a form of a bill is similar to that of Electric Power Group v Alstom which falls under the mental process. Additionally answering the questionnaires using a platform falls under certain methods of organizing human activity particularly according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10, 21-30 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. Claims 1-10, 21-30 are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). Independent claims 1, 27 recite “ providing online access to a practitioner, wherein the platform inputs of billing requirements of third party insurers in real time updated inputs of ICD Codes and CPT codes and utilizing machine learning models for managing updated ICD Codes and CPT codes and inputs from the third party insurers to automatically update at least changes to ICD codes or CPT codes and then associations between these codes ”, “inputting a patient health history”, “generating automatically a list of one or more ICD codes based upon the patient health history and managing updated ICD Codes and CPT codes and inputs from the third party insurers ”, “generating automatically a listing of CPT codes associated with the list of one or more ICD codes”, “selecting on the platform by a medical practitioner one or more CPT codes to be performed on the patient from the listing of CPT codes associated with the list of the one or more ICD codes”, “generating an online user fillable operative notes template based upon the generated CPT codes, wherein the selected codes are matched with ICD codes wherein the operative notes template is configured to detail healthcare services provided to the patient which are reasonable and necessary or appropriate given a patient’s condition and the current standards of clinical practice and is based upon updated ICD Codes and CPT codes and inputs the third party insurers ”, “prompting the medical practitioner to fill out all relevant portions of the online user fillable operative notes template to detail healthcare services provided to the patient which are reasonable and necessary or appropriate given a patient’s condition and the current standards of clinical practice ”, “obtaining a signature of the medical practitioner on the online user fillable operative notes template following the practitioner filling out all relevant portions of the online user fillable operative notes template, wherein the medical practitioner is prevented from providing a signature to complete the online user fillable operative notes template until all relevant portions of the online user fillable operative notes template had been properly filled out which detail healthcare services provide to the patient that are reasonable and necessary or appropriate given a patient’s condition and the current standards of clinical practice ”, “generating a bill by the platform based upon the completed and signed online user fillable operative notes template which is compliant with updated ICD Codes and CPT and inputs from third party insurers ”. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers formula, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “via the internet to an online platform operated by a vendor managing the online platform”, “platform”, “instrument”, “database”, “user interface”, “memory”, “displaying on a display via a user interface of the instrument a search screen comprising a search box, a decision tree selection menu or both”, “search box and selection menu”, “remote server”, “communication interface”, “AI system” are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). The claims recite the additional element of “inputting a patient health history into a platform”, “prompting the medical practitioner to fill out all relevant portions of the online user fillable operative notes templates”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion - paragraph 57 that “billing platform 200 of the present invention will generally operate as a software as a service model controlled by the sponsor 100 or vendor 100. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is a software support or supply model in which access to the software or platform 200 is provided to practitioners 250 on a subscription basis, with the software being located on external servers rather than on servers located in-house. Software-as-a-Service is typically accessed through a web browser, with users 250 logging into the system using a username and password and accessing via a personal “dashboard” 410 as shown in an example in FIG. 3. Instead of each user or practitioner 250 having to install the software on their office server or computer, the user 250 is able to access the program or platform 200 via the Internet. SaaS is easy to implement, easy to update and debug from the vendor 100, and can be less expensive (or at least have lower up-front costs) since users 250 pay for SaaS as they go instead of purchasing multiple software licenses for multiple computers”. The claims recite the additional element of “inputting a patient health history into a platform”, “prompting the medical practitioner to fill out all relevant portions of the online user fillable operative notes templates”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 21-26, 28-30 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. 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 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F. 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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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. REGINALD R. REYES Primary Examiner Art Unit 3684 /REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 2 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 3 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 4 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 5 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 6 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 7 Art Unit: 3684 Application/Control Number: 18/532,994 Page 8 Art Unit: 3684