DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the application filed 10 November 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 20, and 24-25, and cancellation of claims 3 have been received and are acknowledge. Claims 7-8, 11, 21, and 23 were previously cancelled.
The applicant's claim for benefit of Foreign Application CN202110426908.9 filed 20 April 2021 and as a 371 PCT/CN2022/086513 filed 13 April 2022 has been received and acknowledged. Examiner notes that though a certified copy of the Foreign Application has been provided and certified English translation of the Foreign Application has not; therefore, the priority claim to the Foreign Application has not been perfected.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, 22, and 24-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) The newly amended claims do not “…recite a judicial exception to patent eligibility, such as an abstract idea…” (Applicant’s response, p 12-13). (2) Even if the recited claims include a judicial exception, the claims include additional elements that “integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Referencing the Specification [2-6], Applicant asserts that the “obtaining and processing of the target order also cannot be practically performed in the abstract… provides a particular manner of electronically performing and processing transactions, which involve scanning devices, electronics and web links…use of electronic technologies as claimed advantageously streamlines the process by saving time and effort, thereby improving making a technological improvement to corporate accounting…reciting limitations such as those relating to “code scanning” … integrate the alleged judicial exception….” (Applicant’s response, p 13) (3) Applicant further asserts that the recited claims “ provides a specialized mechanism of processing corporate transactions electronically, with improved efficiency compared to conventional manners…involves innovative thoughts and design….amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception…” (Applicant’s response, p 13-14). (4) Claims 24 and 25 are likewise patent-eligible and the dependent claims are patent eligible for the same reason as their base claims. (Applicant’s response, p 14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted previously and in the rejection below the recited claims are insufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant’s own arguments state that the invention ‘uses” technology to improve “corporate accounting.” This is apply-it (MPEP 2106.05 (f); at most the invention improves the abstract idea by using known technology. Further using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (even increasing the speed or the efficiency of the existing process) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Similarly, "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)). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive (Applicant’s arguments 1-4).
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the prior art of Nadai, does not disclose “reimbursement code”, the newly amended claim language, and the “expense control rule.” Further, Applicant asserts that dependent claim are allowable based on their dependency on allowable claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection below. Though Applicant may be their own lexicographer, the claims must be interpreted using broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the recited claims. As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of reimbursement/ reimbursement code data processing. In the instant case, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, and 22 are directed to a process. Claim 24 is directed to computing device. Claim 25 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Reimbursement/reimbursement code data processing is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently amended) A reimbursement method, comprising:
obtaining a target order responsive to code scanning interaction between a member …and an order participant, the code scanning interaction comprising: (i) the member … …a reimbursement code uniquely identifying an institution, which is scanned by a … of the order participant, or (ii) the member …… a transaction code provided by the order participant;
performing expense control verification on the target order of the institution member based on an expense control rule configured in the reimbursement code of an institution, wherein the expense control rule is dynamically configurable and comprises at least one reimbursement category associated with at least one expense control element, said expense control element including at least one of: a time element, a location element, an object compliance element, or a limit element;
paying, upon determining that expense control verification succeeds, for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain bill information;
transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order; and
creating a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information.
24. (Currently amended) A …to:
obtain a target order responsive to code scanning interaction between a member terminal and an order participant, the code scanning interaction comprising: (i) the member … … a reimbursement code uniquely identifying an institution, which is scanned … of the order participant, or (ii) the member ……a transaction code provided by the order participant;
perform expense control verification on the target order of an institution member based on an expense control rule configured in the reimbursement code of an institution, wherein the expense control rule is dynamically configurable and comprises at least one reimbursement category associated with at least one expense control element, said expense control element including at least one of: a time element, a location element, an object compliance element, or a limit element;
pay, upon determining that expense control verification succeeds, for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain bill information;
transfer the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order; and
create a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information.
25. (Currently amended) …:
obtain a target order responsive to code … interaction between a member …and an order participant, the code scanning interaction comprising: (i) the member…… a reimbursement code uniquely identifying an institution, which is scanned …of the order participant, or (ii) the member terminal … a transaction code provided by the order participant;
perform expense control verification on the target order of the institution member based on an expense control rule configured in the reimbursement code of an institution, wherein the expense control rule is dynamically configurable and comprises at least one reimbursement category associated with at least one expense control element, said expense control element including at least one of: a time element, a location element, an object compliance element, or a limit element;
pay, upon determining that expense control verification succeeds, for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain bill information;
transfer the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order; and
create a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of obtaining…performing… paying… transferring… creating… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. transferring/ (i.e. transmitting…)…scanning…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, and 22 are directed to a process. Claim 24 is directed to computing device. Claim 25 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (computing device, memory, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, link, electronic ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [111- 117] computing device… processors (CPUs), … input/output interfaces, … network interfaces… one or memories… may include a non-persistent memory, a random access memory.. a non-volatile memory… computer readable medium… a read-only memory or a flash memory… computer readable medium… )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims 2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, 22 introduce the additional elements of various wherein clauses further defining steps and elements: … performing …determining… verifying… (Claims 2)…obtaining… delivering…(Claim 4) … the institution member accesses (Claim 5); …detecting..( Claim 6)…paying… (Claims 9, 14, )…, transferring… ( Claims 12, 13..) …creating… (Claims 17, 18…)… institution account… (Claim 10)…institution member…accesses… (Claim 15) verification/verifying… (Claims 16, 19, 20)… determining a target reimbursement category… (Claim 22)… This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) . Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amounts to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [111- 117] computing device… processors (CPUs), … input/output interfaces, … network interfaces… one or memories… may include a non-persistent memory, a random access memory.. a non-volatile memory… computer readable medium… a read-only memory or a flash memory… computer readable medium… )
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the instant disclosure does not provide a specific definition of the terms: “electronic ticket,” “ticket application link” etc. It is noted that the disclosure is also a translation, In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted such terms using broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the context provided by the disclosure as including for example as: “ ‘reimbursement’, ‘reimbursement claim’, ‘claim,’ any type of link/linking action/noun etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13-14, 17, 19, 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8560350 B2, Nadai hereinafter referred to as Nadai further in view of US 2002/0035484 A1, McCormick hereinafter referred to as McCormick.
Claims 1, 24 and 25
Nadai discloses a reimbursement method, device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (C1,L 8-10) comprising:
performing expense control verification on the target order of] the institution member based on an expense control rule configured in the reimbursement code of an institution, wherein the expense control rule is dynamically configurable and comprises at least one reimbursement category associated with at least one expense control element, said expense control element including at least one of: a time element, a location element, an object compliance element, or a limit element; (See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
paying, if upon determining that expense control verification succeeds, for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain bill information; (See at least Nadai, C8L66-67, Medicare… pays for the Demonstration Project Codes.. if ..(patient meets certain criteria))
transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order; and (See at least Nadai, C2L47-C3L, to bill the correct representation… C6L58-66, Building claims and sequencing claim line items… contains billing algorithm)
creating a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information. (See at least Nadai, C9L13-41 Carriers will reimburse…recorded by the nurse or estimated by the application…C11L4-6 Allowable reimbursement items change over time and vary by region, which will result in changes to the application as needed. )
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however McCormick suggests:
obtaining a target order responsive to code scanning interaction between a member terminal and an order participant, the code scanning interaction comprising: (i) the member terminal displaying a reimbursement code uniquely identifying an institution, which is scanned by a scanning device of the order participant, or (ii) the member terminal scanning a transaction code provided by the order participant; (See at least McCormick, Fig. 1B automatic data capture, machine readable code, terminal sends prescription… scans in prescription … eligibility adjudication… machine readable code..Fig. 2; Fig. 12; ….[40-41] Fig. 10… coding schemes….patent encounter level… level of medical services being provided by the doctor… the more involved the encounter the higher the doctor will be reimbursed.)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. McCormick is a method of prescribing prescription drugs including a scanning feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions including a scanning feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai / McCormick.
Claim 2
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein the performing expense control verification on the target order of the institution member based on an expense control rule configured in the reimbursement code comprises:
determining a target reimbursement category matching the target order in at least one reimbursement category of the expense control rule; (See at least Nadai, C2LL52-63, generating remarks … ensure reimbursement for administration…type of administrations and any concurrent infusions… C4L10-13..predetermined code to distinguish between types of administrations and any concurrent infusions…may determine correct set of codes…. )
verifying whether element information recorded in the target order falls within a value range of an expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category; and (See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
upon determining that element information recorded in the target order falls within the value range of the expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category, determining that verification on the target order in terms of the target reimbursement category succeeds. See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
Claim 4
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however McCormick suggests:
further comprising:
obtaining a reimbursement code access request submitted by the member terminal of the institution member; and (See at least McCormick, Fig. 1B Eligibility Adjudication… compliance data .. )
delivering the reimbursement code of the institution to the member terminal, to display the reimbursement code on the member terminal, (See at least McCormick, Fig. 1B automatic data capture, machine readable code, terminal sends prescription… scans in prescription … eligibility adjudication… machine readable code..Fig. 2; Fig. 12; ….[40-41] Fig. 10… coding schemes….patent encounter level… level of medical services being provided by the doctor… the more involved the encounter the higher the doctor will be reimbursed.)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. McCormick is a method of prescribing prescription drugs including a scanning feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions including a scanning feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai / McCormick.
Claim 5
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however McCormick suggests:
wherein the institution member accesses a code scanning control of a reimbursement code service configured for a third-party application, to invoke an image capturing component configured for the member terminal to scan the transaction code. (See at least McCormick, Fig. 1B automatic data capture, machine readable code, terminal sends prescription… scans in prescription … eligibility adjudication… machine readable code..Fig. 2; Fig. 12; ….[40-41] Fig. 10… coding schemes….patent encounter level… level of medical services being provided by the doctor… the more involved the encounter the higher the doctor will be reimbursed.)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. McCormick is a method of prescribing prescription drugs including a scanning feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions including a scanning feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai / McCormick.
Claim 6
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai further discloses:
detecting, based on an obtained reimbursement code activation request of the institution, whether the institution is an authenticated institution or whether an the institution member who submits the reimbursement code activation request is an institution possessor of the institution; and (See at least Nadai, Fig. 1-2, G-Wiz .. Dr. Maya Sandbox… reads on authenticated institution)
upon determining that the institution is an authenticated institution or an the institution member who submits the reimbursement code activation request is an institution possessor of the institution, generating the reimbursement code, delivering the reimbursement code to the institution or the institution member who submits the reimbursement code activation request, and establishing a binding relationship between the institution and a submitted institution account. (See at least Nadai, C12L12-24, computer application allows for multiple fee schedules to be established… allows practice to maintain a fee schedule of allowed amounts for each carrier…)
Claim 9
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however McCormick suggests:
wherein the paying for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution comprises:
upon determining that the institution is an authenticated institution, transferring out funds from a business account of the institution based on an order amount recorded in the target order, and transferring the transferred-out funds to an account of the order participant; or (See at least McCormick, [43] doctor is required to fill out the codes …insurance company would make payment…follow those guidelines for full payment…)
upon determining that the institution is a non-authenticated institution, transferring out funds from a possessor's account of an institution processor based on an order amount recorded in the target order, and transferring the transferred-out funds to an account of the order participant. (See at least McCormick, [43-45] patient incurring …additional expenses…)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. McCormick is a method of prescribing prescription drugs including a reimbursement feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions including a reimbursement feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai / McCormick.
Claim 13
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein the transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order comprises:
delivering a payment completion page or a bill presentation page of the target order to the institution member, wherein the payment completion page and the bill presentation page are configured with a ticket application control of the target order; and ( See at least Nadai, Fig. 64-65 Claims… claim charges ..bill charges… grand total… )
upon determining that a trigger instruction of the ticket application control is detected, transferring the bill information to the ticket application link, and obtaining the electronic ticket that is of the target order and that is returned by the ticket application link. ( See at least Nadai, Fig. 63-65, waste …Claims… claim charges ..bill charges… grand total… )
Claim 14
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein after paying, upon determining that expense control verification succeeds, for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution, to obtain bill information, and before transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by an order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order is performed, the method further comprises: determining whether the order participant activates the ticket application link; and (See at least Nadai, Fig. 63-65, waste …Claims… claim charges ..bill charges… grand total… C8L66-67, Medicare… pays for the Demonstration Project Codes.. if ..(patient meets certain criteria)…C21L1-29.. [example of what qualifies as a Medicare eligible Push… nurse modifying waste…patient brings in medicine and nurse modifies coding… drop down list .. user selection] .. . )
upon determining that the order participant activates the ticket application link performing the step of transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order; or (See at least Nadai, Fig. 63-65, waste …Claims… claim charges ..bill charges… grand total… C21L1-29.. [example of what qualifies as a Medicare eligible Push… nurse modifying waste…patient brings in medicine and nurse modifies coding… drop down list .. user selection] .. . )
upon determining that the order participant does not activate the ticket application detecting, in a polling manner, an electronic ticket submitted by the institution member or the order participant, and associating the submitted electronic ticket with the bill information of the target order, to create a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the submitted electronic ticket and the bill information. (See at least Nadai, Fig. 63-65, waste …Claims… claim charges ..bill charges… grand total… C21L49-67.. [example of bundling… for billing and reimbursement] )
Claim 17
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein the creating a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information comprises:
verifying authenticity of the electronic ticket and the bill information; and
after verification succeeds, creating the reimbursement form of the institution member based on ticket key information recorded in the electronic ticket and/or bill key information comprised in the bill information. (See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
Claim 19
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein upon determining that verification on the target order in terms of a plurality of target reimbursement categories succeeds, the following operations are performed:
using, based on a priority sequence of the target reimbursement categories, a reimbursement category with a highest priority in the plurality of matched target reimbursement categories as an expense control reimbursement category; or displaying the plurality of matched target reimbursement categories to the institution member, and using, as an expense control reimbursement category, a target reimbursement category selected by the institution member from the plurality of displayed target reimbursement categories; or determining an expense control reimbursement category from the plurality of matched target reimbursement categories based on historical reimbursement data of the institution member. (See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
Claim 22
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Nadai further discloses:
wherein the determining a target reimbursement category matching the target order in at least one reimbursement category of the expense control rule comprises:
detecting whether the target order matches a plurality of reimbursement categories of the expense control rule; and (See at least Nadai, C2L47-53, verifying that the … level is record and meets a minimum level require for reimbursement .. by the insurance carrier…predetermined code… C5L15-19, verifying the coding of the proper primary diagnosis code for certain procedures)
upon determining that the target order matches a plurality of reimbursement categories of the expense control rule using a reimbursement category with a highest priority in the plurality of matched reimbursement categories as the target reimbursement category based on a priority sequence of the reimbursement categories; or displaying the plurality of matched reimbursement categories to the institution member, and using, as the target reimbursement category, a reimbursement category selected by the institution member from the plurality of displayed reimbursement categories; or determining the target reimbursement category from the plurality of matched reimbursement categories based on historical reimbursement data of the institution member. (See at least Nadai, C3L50-54, automatically generate an electronic bill having optimized reimbursable insurance claim items including predetermined codes …..Claims 1, 23 and 43)
Claims 10, 12, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadai n view of McCormick further in view of US 7,464,859 B1, Hawkins hereinafter referred to as Hawkins.
Claim 10
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
wherein the institution account comprises a financial account that is activated by the institution at a financial institution; and (See at least Hawkins, Figs. 1, 2A 204 and 2B; C20L 46-54, user registers the purchase account; C21L9-34 any suitable card or account)
correspondingly, the paying for the target order based on an institution account bound to the institution comprises:
transferring out funds from the financial account based on an order amount recorded in the target order, and (See at least Hawkins, Figs. 1, 2A and 2B , 216, conduct purchase; 218, settle; Fig. 2D)
transferring the transferred-out funds to an account of the order participant. (See at least Hawkins, Figs. 1, 2A and 2B , 216, conduct purchase; 218, settle; Fog. 2D 258, 260, 262 transfer funds)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Claim 12
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
wherein the transferring the bill information to a ticket application link activated by the order participant, to generate an electronic ticket of the target order comprises:
querying institution keyword information that has a mapping relationship with the institution member; and ( See at least Hawkins,C19L4-55… linked cards database can be queried….C27L48-50, query … databases…listings…allowable… )
transferring the bill information to a ticket application link associated with the member order, and obtaining the electronic ticket that is of the target order and that is returned by the ticket application link, wherein the ticket application link issues the electronic ticket based on the bill information and the institution keyword information synchronized from the institution. ( See at least Hawkins, C19L4-34, reimbursement and identifying accounts are then linked to each other to automate the reimbursement for costs related to purchases of reimbursable (i.e. allowable) items…See also C23L50-67 billing system … can be used to track transactions… )
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Claim 15
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
wherein the institution member accesses the reimbursement code by using a reimbursement code service provided by a third-party application;
upon determining that a plurality of institutions have a subordinate relationship with the institution member, the reimbursement code service is configured with reimbursement code access entries of a plurality of institutions or a plurality of reimbursement code presentation pages; and the reimbursement code service is configured with a switching control for switching from a reimbursement code access entry of one institution to a reimbursement code access entry of another institution, or a switching control for switching from a reimbursement code display page of one institution to a reimbursement code display page of another institution. (See at least Hawkins, Fig. 1…C19L56-C20L29 filters… business rules… multiple secondary reimbursement accounts…C31L17-44.. report generation… displayed through a suitable graphical user interface.. . graphical user interface..C34L10-14 funds transfer… accounts in different financial institutions or a transfer of funds between accounts with a financial institution… )
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Claim 16
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
upon determining that expense control verification fails, delivering reimbursement failure reminder information to the institution member, and/or transferring out funds from a member account of the institution member, and transferring the transferred-out funds to an account of the order participant. (See at least Hawkins, Fig 5, C34L10-14 funds transfer… accounts in different financial institutions or a transfer of funds between accounts with a financial institution…C35L40-45.. purchase transaction.. reimbursable.. unallowable purchases… pay for the purchase transactions with funds associated with user from an account other than the reimbursement account… )
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Claim 18
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
wherein the creating a reimbursement form of the institution member based on the electronic ticket and the bill information comprises:
analyzing a payment on business relationship between a plurality of target orders based on element information comprised in bill information of the plurality of target orders; and (See at least Hawkins, Figs. 1, 2A 204 and 2B; C20L 46-54, user registers the purchase account; C19L4-34, reimbursement and identifying accounts are then linked to each other to automate the reimbursement for costs related to purchases of reimbursable (i.e. allowable) items…See also C23L50-67 billing system … can be used to track transactions…)
combining the plurality of target orders based on the payment on business relationship, and creating a reimbursement form of the institution member for a payment on business journey based on a combination result and electronic tickets of the plurality of target orders. (See at least Hawkins, Figs. 1, 2A 204 and 2B; C3L15-18 aggregating purchase transaction data associated with a plurality of purchase transaction from a plurality of registered purchase accounts…C20L 46-54, user registers the purchase account; C19L4-34, reimbursement and identifying accounts are then linked to each other to automate the reimbursement for costs related to purchases of reimbursable (i.e. allowable) items…See also C23L50-67 billing system … can be used to track transactions…)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Claim 20
Nadai and McCormick disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Nadai does not directly disclose the following; however Hawkins suggests:
wherein upon determining that an execution result of the step of verifying whether element information recorded in the target order falls within a value range of an expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category is no, the method comprises:
determining a non-compliant element that is in the element information recorded in the target order and that is outside the value range of the expense control element associated with the target reimbursement category; and ( See at least Hawkins, C30L66-C31L21… unallowed purchases)
generating expense control reminder information based on the non-compliant element and corresponding element information, and ( See at least Hawkins, C30L66-C31L21… unallowed purchases… report generational module)
delivering the expense control reminder information to the institution member. ( See at least Hawkins, C30L66-C31L21… unallowed purchases… report generational module…deliver reports in … soft copy … or hard copy… )
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Nadai discloses a method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including allocated medical procedures/prescriptions. Hawkins is a method and system of conducting reimbursements using financial accounts. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method, system and computer program of generating and optimized bill including claim/reimbursable items including reimbursing using financial accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Nadai /Hawkins.
Conclusion
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691