Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 1/23/26 for patent application 18/623,105.
2. Claims 1, 4-8,11-15, 18-21 are amended.
3. Claims 22-24 are new.
4. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-24 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. As noted above, claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Thus, the present rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is moot.
Without addressing the propriety of the rejection and in order to expedite prosecution, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 have been amended as noted above. Claims 3-7 depend from independent claim 1. Claims 10-14 depend from independent claim 8. Claims 17-21 depend from independent claim 15.
Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S. C. §101 is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims as amended are still reciting the identified abstract idea, see the section 101 rejection below.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Without submitting to the propriety of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103, and to expedite prosecution, claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20-21 have been amended as noted above. Claims 3 and 6-7 depend from independent claim 1. Claims 10 and 13-14 depend from independent claim 8. Claims 17 and 20-21 depend from independent claim 15. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 is respectfully requested.
Claims 22-24 have been newly added. Applicant respectfully submits that new claim 22 depends from independent claim 1; claim 23 depends from independent claim 8; and claim 24 depends from independent claim 15. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that new claims 22-24 are allowable.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claim, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 8 is directed to a system and claim 15 is directed to a computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving an invoice associated with an insured entity, wherein the invoice indicates a set of procedures performed for treatment of the insured entity, and wherein the insured entity is associated with a policy;
processing the invoice through an optical character recognition (OCR) processor to generate a digitized invoice according to a machine-readable format;
processing the digitized invoice through a condition determination machine learning algorithm to identify one or more conditions associated with the digitized invoice, wherein the condition determination machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample digitized invoices, sample terms included in the sample digitized invoices, and sample conditions corresponding to the sample terms;
processing the digitized invoice according to the one or more conditions and the policy to generate an adjudication of a set of claims associated with the invoice, wherein the digitized invoice is processed while other invoices are continuously received and corresponding other digitized invoices are continuously processed through the condition determination machine learning algorithm;
updating the dataset according to the adjudication and other adjudications associated with the other digitized invoices;
updating the condition determination machine learning algorithm using the updated dataset;
processing new digitized invoices through the updated condition determination machine learning algorithm to identify new conditions associated with the new digitized invoices and to generate new adjudications according to the new conditions and corresponding policies.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (insurance), (e.g., receiving an invoice associated with an insured entity, wherein the invoice indicates a set of procedures performed for treatment of the insured entity, and wherein the insured entity is associated with a policy; processing the invoice to generate a invoice; processing the invoice to identify one or more conditions associated with the invoice; processing the invoice according to the one or more conditions and the policy to generate an adjudication of a set of claims associated with the invoice, wherein the invoice is processed while other invoices are continuously received and corresponding other invoices are continuously processed; processing new invoices to identify new conditions associated with the new invoices and to generate new adjudications according to the new conditions and corresponding policies)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Claims 8&15 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, and therefore are also reciting the identified abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1,8 & 15 includes the following additional elements:
-An OCR processor
-training and updating a machine learning algorithm using an updated dataset
-one or more processors
-memory storing instructions
-a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
The OCR processor, training and updating a machine learning algorithm using an updated dataset, one or more processors, memory storing instructions and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 8,15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1,8,15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-24 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8& 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claims 4,11, 18 recites, the additional element of “a logic process”. The “logic process” is recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, 19 recites the additional elements of “proximate clusters” & “vector values”. The “proximate clusters” and “vector values” are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claims 22-24 recites the additional elements of “vectors of similarity” and “digitized invoice clusters”. The “vectors of similarity” and “digitized invoice clusters” are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims (3-7, 10-14, 17-24) do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-24 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1,3-8, 10-15, 17-24 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 3/16/2026