DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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 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.
This action is in reply to the response and/or arguments filed for Application 18/770,436 filed on 4 February 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-20 have been newly added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 January 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is not directed to an abstract idea and, even if it were, the claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing steps using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider) but for the recitation of existing technology and/or computer-related components falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device –nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as “database”, “generative transformer”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider). Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that the claimed method provides a technical solution to a technical problem and represents an improvement to computer functionality by providing an automated system for maintaining accurate and up-to-date requirements information without requiring manual review and comparison of data sources.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the improvement can be found in “accessing networked locations, capturing raw data, applying a fine-tuned generative transformer to structure that data, and automatically detecting and updating changes”, to perform the claimed functionality is not inventive and involves the application of technology that currently exists. The present claims recite elements that are, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not to another technology or technical field. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The limitation features comprising “receiving an input comprising service information and purveyor information; matching the service information to a service in a database; matching the purveyor information to a purveyor in the database; retrieving stored information from the database based on the service and the purveyor; accessing a networked location based on the service and the purveyor; capturing, via a webcrawler, raw updated information from the networked location; structuring the raw updated information using a generative transformer to generate structured updated information, wherein the generative transformer is fine-tuned on documentation comprising Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes”, are representative of mere “data gathering” while using a computer to gather data which is not sufficient for establishing a practical application. The limitations do not represent an improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of existing technology in an abstract environment.
In the instant application, there is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally applying the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
D. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claim 1 stands rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bonissone et al., US 2003/0182159 A1(“Bonissone”), in view of Gokhale et al., US 2020/0020040 A1 (“Gokhale”).
The Office has given consideration to the remarks and amendments made to the pending set of claims, but are considered moot in light of the grounds of rejection, provided below, for the current listing of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In the instant case, representative independent claim 1 is directed towards facilitating the structuring (e.g., standardized formatting) of data and/or information provided from a service provider in an automated manner, involving steps that are nothing more than merely using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider) but for the recitation of existing technology and/or computer-related components. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of processing preauthorization information associated with a service provider in which the service corresponds to insurance (Spec. para. [0039]), which is an existing economic/commercial practice and/or concept, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) as well as mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, groupings inasmuch as the claimed method as a whole is directed towards facilitating utilizing a mathematical model to perform calculations utilizing an algorithm, but for the recitation of computer-related components.
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions and mathematical concepts groupings grouping, in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: “receiving an input comprising service information and purveyor information;
matching the service information to a service in a database;
matching the purveyor information to a purveyor in the database;
retrieving stored information from the database based on the service and the purveyor;
accessing a networked location based on the service and the purveyor;
capturing, via a webcrawler, raw updated information from the networked location;
structuring the raw updated information using a generative transformer to generate structured updated information, wherein the generative transformer is fine-tuned on documentation comprising Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes;
detecting changes between the stored information and the structured updated information; and
in response to detecting changes, updating the stored information based on the structured updated information”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Processing preauthorization information associated with a service provider related to insurance is a basic economic practice and, thus, an abstract idea (Alice Coro. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, Bilski v. Kappos, BuySAFE Inc., v. Google Inc., Ultramercial Inc., v. Hulu, LLC). Because the claim is directed to the performance of financial transactions, it is thus directed to an abstract idea. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Performing steps using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider) but for the recitation of existing technology and/or computer-related components falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device –nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as “database”, “generative transformer”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider).
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to carry out the steps of merely receiving/accessing (service/purveyor information), matching/comparing (purveyor/stored information), structuring, (generating updated structured information), verifying (detecting changes to information), and updating (stored information) in order to process a transaction (e.g., pre-authorization) associated with a service provider (e.g., insurance, benefits provider) using computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Independent claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 11 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 11 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luitjens, US 2024/0346162 A1 (“Luitjens”), in view of Valdes et al., US 2021/0225469 A1 (“Valdes”).
Re Claim 1: (Currently Amended) Luitjens discloses a method for providing requirements, the method comprising:
receiving an input comprising service information and purveyor information; ([0010] “Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to systems and methods for communicating data in distributed computing networks. One or more processors coupled with memory may receive, from a computing device, a first input including a first plurality of data elements to be provided at least in part to a deep learning architecture (or a machine learning model)”)
matching the service information to a service in a database; ([0058] “In some embodiments, the response analyzer 165 may compare each data element 310 with the placeholder element 215 of the mapping 220. If there is a match between at least one data element 310 and the placeholder element 215, the response analyzer 165 may identify the data element 310 as the placeholder element 215”)
matching the purveyor information to a purveyor in the database; ([0058] “In some embodiments, the response analyzer 165 may compare each data element 310 with the placeholder element 215 of the mapping 220. If there is a match between at least one data element 310 and the placeholder element 215, the response analyzer 165 may identify the data element 310 as the placeholder element 215”)
retrieving stored information from the database based on the service and the purveyor; ([0061] The data restorer 175 may produce, create, or otherwise generate at least one modified output 305' (sometimes herein referred to as a second output) using the mapping 220 ( e.g., the data structures storing the mapping 220) from the model output 305.”)
accessing a networked location based on the service and the purveyor; ([0036] “… The model service 115 can be in communication with the data processing system 105, the computing device 110, and the database 120, via the network 125.”)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
capturing, via a webcrawler, raw updated information from the networked location;
Valdes makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0031] “… data server 109 may capture, share, and aggregate the healthcare data records collected from the variety of data sources 103 in a consistent
manner by the standardized model universal health care concept codes terminology”; [0066] “… During operation, a user may access the webpage 302 by any common access method. e.g., keying in a URL selecting from search results, etc.”; [0048] The service databases 111 may be in communication to the data server 109 via the network 113 and include a non-transitory machine-readable storage media capable of receiving, storing, updating healthcare records stored in the service databases 111.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before t[he effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Valdes to the invention of Luitjens as described above for the motivation of aggregating and standardizing data across disparate sources.
Luitjens further discloses:
structuring the raw updated information using a generative transformer to generate structured updated information, wherein the generative transformer is fine-tuned on documentation comprising Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes; ([0037] “network architecture for the generative AI model 145 may generally be a deep learning architecture, such as: a transformer model (e.g., a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)…”; [0008] “…sensitive or confidential information becomes integrated into training data to re-train or fine-tune the generative AI model”)
detecting changes between the stored information and the structured updated information; ([0046] “… When the data element 210 is determined to not satisfy the sensitivity condition, the prompt parser 150 may identify that the data element 210 is not exempt from the redaction condition. The prompt parser 150 may determine that the data element 210 is to be replaced or removed from the prompt 205.”)
in response to detecting changes, updating the stored information based on the structured updated information. ([0038] “… training may include updating the set of weights using a loss metric determined from the expected output from the corpus versus the output from the generative AI model 145”)
Re Claim 2: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
wherein receiving the input comprises receiving the input via a selection menu. ([0041] “… the prompt parser 150 may determine, select, or otherwise identify a language from a set of languages used by the set of data elements 210 of the prompt 205.”)
Re Claim 3: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
wherein receiving the input comprises: receiving the input via a text box; parsing the input to determine the service information and the purveyor information. ([0041] “… prompt 205 may include a series of words entered by the user on a graphical user interface element of the application running on the computing device 110”; [0043] “The prompt parser 150 may process or parse the set of data elements 210 of the prompt 205.”)
Re Claim 4: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 3. Luitjens further discloses:
wherein parsing the input comprises using a natural language processor on the input. ([0058] “… response analyzer 165 may apply the ML model 180 (e.g., named entity recognition, regular expression, or a local instance of a generative AI model such as a large language model (LLM))”)
Re Claim 5: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
wherein the purveyor is associated with a location; and wherein the stored information comprises at least one of private, national, regional, and state payer requirements. ([0053] “… prompt modifier 160 may insert the image portion corresponding to the placeholder element 215 at a location or region corresponding to the data element 210”; [0004] “… sensitive or confidential information may include, for example, personally identifiable information (PII) (e.g., names, account information, location information, or identification numbers), financial information (e.g., credit card number or transaction details), or health information (e.g., medical records, insurance data, or prescription information), among others.”)
Re Claim 6: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
wherein the service comprises an insurance coverage of at least one of a medical procedure, a car repair, a home repair, unemployment, or a life. ([0053] “… prompt modifier 160 may insert the image portion corresponding to the placeholder element 215 at a location or region corresponding to the data element 210”; [0004] “… sensitive or confidential information may include, for example, personally identifiable information (PII) (e.g., names, account information, location information, or identification numbers), financial information (e.g., credit card number or transaction details), or health information (e.g., medical records, insurance data, or prescription information), among others.”)
Re Claim 7: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
displaying the stored information via a graphical user interface. ([0006] “… proxy service may provide de-identification and re-identification functionalities through an application program interface (API) accessible to the computing devices and servers in the network.”)
Re Claim 8: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
in response to detecting changes, transmitting an electronic message to a user. ([0090] “… mapping of original items to replacement items may be preserved across a session of use to ensure consistency of information in a chat/messaging session.”)
Re Claim 9: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Luitjens further discloses:
confining the generative transformer based on the service. ([0037] “network architecture for the generative AI model 145 may generally be a deep learning architecture, such as: a transformer model (e.g., a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)…”)
Re Claim 10: (New) Luitjens in view of Valdes discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation comprising:
wherein the networked location is a predetermined Universal Resource Locator (URL).
Valdes makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0031] “… data server 109 may capture, share, and aggregate the healthcare data records collected from the variety of data sources 103 in a consistent
manner by the standardized model universal health care concept codes terminology”; [0066] “… During operation, a user may access the webpage 302 by any common access method. e.g., keying in a URL selecting from search results, etc.”; [0048] The service databases 111 may be in communication to the data server 109 via the network 113 and include a non-transitory machine-readable storage media capable of receiving, storing, updating healthcare records stored in the service databases 111.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before t[he effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Valdes to the invention of Luitjens as described above for the motivation of aggregating and standardizing data across disparate sources.
Re Claim 11: (New) Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 12: (New) Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 13: (New) Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 14: (New) Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 15: (New) Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 16: (New) Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 17: (New) Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 18: (New) Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
Re Claim 19: (New) Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
Re Claim 20: (New) Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morita et al. (US 2008/0208631 A1) discloses methods and systems for providing clinical documentation for a patient lifetime in a single interface. Certain embodiments of the present invention provide methods and systems for comprehensive clinical documentation of patient lifetime via a unified interface. Certain embodiments provide a user interface system displaying an electronic
patient record. The system includes a timeline representation of a patient record. The timeline includes a plurality of data points related to a patient over time. The plurality of data points provides patient data aggregated from a plurality of information sources. The timeline provides access to and
review of the plurality of data points within a single view. The system includes one or more controls allowing navigation and manipulation of one or more of the plurality of data points in the timeline.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights