DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the submission dated 7/16/2026, no amendments were made.
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 10), machine (claim 11), and manufacture (claims 12) which recite the abstract idea steps of
receiving a first communication comprising first attempt to access data by a first user;
analyzing first user authorization by comparing first user credentials to authorized user credentials;
optimizing a plurality of data entry options available to the first user for entering data by reiteratively:
identifying targets in each of the plurality of categories as key data targets;
prompting a first data entry by the first user into a first data entry option of the plurality of data entry options, the first data entry option being of a first category of a plurality of categories;
evaluating the entered first data entry by comparing the first data entry to the identified targets;
constraining a remainder of the plurality of data entry options associated with a remainder of the plurality of categories according to the first entered identified target;
prompting a next data entry by the first user into a next data entry option of the plurality of data entry options, the next data entry option being of a next category of a plurality of categories;
evaluating the entered next data entry by comparing the next data entry to the identified targets; and
constraining a remainder of the plurality of data entry options associated with a remainder of the plurality of categories according to the next entered identified target.
Per MPEP guidance, the Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. Further, the Examiner differentiates between the abstract idea and the abstract idea applied to technology.
These steps of 1 – 12, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer implemented language, evaluating in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of receiving, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the server language, analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 1 – 12, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. First, below is what the Specification says is the invention’s improvement:
[0009] Advantages and Differences of Invention Over Known Prior Art
[0010] While the prior art makes attempts to achieve provider efficiency for the administrative process, none of them enable customizing the program to enable efficiency for a specific pharmaceutical, placing the financial cost for upgrade on the pharmaceutical manufacturer while yet maintaining patient confidentiality and HIPAA compliance to the strictest degree.
[0011] There are numerous examples of however, letter templates on numerous drug and device manufacturer websites, however none of them facilitate a method of tailoring a specific type of letter for a specific patient, with a specific history, with specific symptoms, for a specific pharmaceutical, for a specific purpose, with specific tips to address specific concerns of the specific insurance's specific coverage programs.
[0012] There are numerous examples of letter templates enabling editing, however none of them facilitate a method of reducing the options thereby tailoring a letter for a specific drug, with a specific utilization management criteria, with a verification protocol with an optimization protocol, for a specific pharmaceutical, for a specific purpose, with specific tips to address concerns of the insurers' compliance programs.
[0013] There are several key issues and problems that have been noted with prior art methods. 1) Increasing payer restrictions often require providers to justify treatments. 2) Letter writing is a hassle and time-intensive for providers. 3) Letter writing is often too complicated and difficult to delegate to staff. 4) Current letter templates that are available may be helpful, but due to overall training requirements and implementation protocols, these prior templates are not actually effective at reducing time or hassle involved with letter creation. 5) Letter utilization is difficult to capture. 6) Letter library management is daunting to most physicians and providers, as well as drug and device manufacturers.
These paragraphs, and as claimed, show that the invention is directed towards interaction of a human with a computer. The paragraphs are related to the financial decisions of healthcare. The specification, as reflected in the claims, shows that the invention is directed towards methods of organizing human activity.
Further, it is important to explain what the Specification does not show. The Specification does not show a technical improvement or a technological improvement to overcome a problem of technology. The Specification describes the application of technology to the abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying the technology to the abstract idea.
The Specification also does not show a practical application. The result of the invention is are words that may be printed on a piece of paper, displayed on a screen, or stored in a database. The words represent an action that may or may not be performed in the future. From a patenting standpoint, it is the Examiner’s view that the words represent nonfunctional descriptive information. The words have potential usage.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 10, reciting particular aspects of how associating and classifying may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of computer-implemented amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving.. a first communication amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of identifying targets amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 12; receiving, analyzing, and optimizing, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional Elements
computer – paragraph 81 personal computer
server – paragraph 175 plurality of networked computing devices
interface – paragraph 220 web based
communications network – paragraph 176 internet
nonvolatile memory – paragraph 176 memory includes
security device – paragraph 81 personal computer
program code – paragraph 176 capable of being coded to store
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, classification, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see § 112 Rejections, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to claims 1 – 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112 Rejections of claims 1 – 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§ 101 Rejection: Computer Implementation #1
The Applicant states, “When the analysis is carried out as guided by the Alice/Mayo two-part test, including as implemented by the 2019 PEG, Applicant submits that it should be determined that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted.
Alice/Mayo
The Examiner notes that the Applicant did not make any arguments within this statement. The Examiner follows the guidance of the MPEP.
Alice/Mayo Part 1: Methods Are Directed towards Eligible Concepts
The Applicant states, “It is respectfully submitted that the present claims are not directed towards a method of organizing human activity or mental process, and the characterization of such may involve a misunderstanding of the invention as a whole.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted.
The Applicant further states, “Applicant invites the Examiner to an interview for a telephonic discussion, in order to provide greater clarification of some of the nuances of the inventive system and approach.” The Examiner is unsure of the discussion points and the rationale for the interview.
The Applicant states, “Applicant submits that the presence of computerized methods, algorithms, and the like do not mean that the claims themselves are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted. However, the Examiner follows the guidance of the MPEP that allows for generic computer components.
The Applicant states, “The present system includes hardware that was tailored to meet the specific requirements for this inventive method, but the focus of this application is the inventive method.” It should be noted that the Specification disagrees, the generic nature of the hardware is repeatedly noted for example in paragraph 175, “It is to be understood that while the system shown in Figure 20 illustrates a single server, this may in fact represent a plurality of servers, a plurality of networked computing devices, or other computer workstations.”
The Applicant further states, “The present inventive methodology alters technological requirements by providing a method for securely connecting the necessary components, skipping the data crunching where it isn't necessary, and thereby reducing the overall technical load.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted. However, besides the workload of a person or a manufacturer, the Specification is silent regarding this technological load reduction. At best the Applicant is describing the affect of applying technology to the abstract idea to achieve all the benefits of applying technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “This is supported by the specification in paragraphs [0014] - [0018] (provided below for reference) which discusses the reasons that have prevented Als, people, and other methods from completing a similar methodology prior to the present methodology.” The Examiner notes that the cited sections describe how the invention improves the user’s lives. These cited paragraphs support the Examiner’s assertion that the invention is also directed towards methods of organizing human activity. The Applicant never remarks upon the invention directed toward this abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “Applicant submits that the present claims do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore, do not recite a mental process.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted.
Alice/May Part 2: Method Does Not Monopolize an Abstract Idea
The Applicant states, “Even if the Office disagrees and maintains the mischaracterization of the claims as directed to a mental process, Applicant submits that the Office should still find the claims patent eligible under the second inquiry set forth by the Court because none of the claims are merely a drafting effort to monopolize an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.04 includes, “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, based upon the MPEP, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant.
The Applicant states, “In view of the above, and foregoing, Applicant believes that present invention does not seek to extend to a monopoly of the concept of restraining data models. However, Applicant remains open to any recommended claim amendments which may address the concerns of the Office and eliminate any possible interpretation of the claims to extend to a monopoly of the concept of restraining data models.” The Examiner has no suggestions. The instant specification never uses the phrase, “restraining data models.”
Additional Elements Are Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional Activity
The Applicant states, “Applicant notes that the MPEP indicates that when making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the Office should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). The Office is urged to keep in mind the following points when determining whether additional elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity:” The Applicant never makes an argument that the Examiner’s additional element section was missing or contained incomplete data. Please see paragraph 15 above and the same paragraph in the previous office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hafez et al Pub. No.: US 2021/0319906 predicting metastasis of a cancer in a subject.
Dew et al Pub. No.: US 2006/0116908 generating a patient's medical record.
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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights