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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 5-14 in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. The election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-4 and 15-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on 04 November 2024.
Claims 5-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/595,885 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claim 5 the prior-filed application does not provide support for “a data normalization module to normalize the fee data sets”, “an error detection module that identifies inconsistencies within imported data and alerts users to correct missing data for accuracy in analysis”, and “a reporting module that presents adjusted fees, expected revenue impact, and target percentile positioning for user approval or modification.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of a data normalization module to normalize the fee data sets; an error detection module that identifies inconsistencies within imported data and alerts users to correct missing data for accuracy in analysis; and, a reporting module that presents adjusted fees, expected revenue impact, and target percentile positioning for user approval or modification.
Accordingly, claims 5-14 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 591, 791, and 1140. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 5 recites the following:
“a data import module… to retrieve”
“a data normalization module… to normalize”
“a fee analysis module… compares”
“an error detection module … identifies”
“a reporting module … presents”
Claim 6 recites the following:
“error detection module … validates”
Claim 7 recites the following:
“fee analysis module… provides”
Claim 8 recites the following:
“error detection module … identifies”
Claim 9 recites the following:
“percentile-based fee adjustment module … allows”
Claim 10 recites the following:
“reporting module … displays”
Claim 11 recites the following:
“patient feedback analysis module… calculates”
Claim 12 recites the following:
“fee analysis module… recommends”
Claim 13 recites the following:
“data import module … applies”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
The following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 5 recites the following:
“a data import module… to retrieve”
“a reporting module … presents”
Of claim 10 recites the following:
“reporting module … displays”
recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general
purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or
display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the
specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations.
However, the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 1 recites the following:
“a data normalization module… to normalize”
“a fee analysis module… compares”
“an error detection module … identifies”
Of claim 6 recites the following:
“error detection module … validates”
Of claim 7 recites the following:
“fee analysis module… provides”
Of claim 8 recites the following:
“error detection module … identifies”
Of claim 9 recites the following:
“percentile-based fee adjustment module … allows”
Of claim 11 recites the following:
“patient feedback analysis module… calculates”
Of claim 12 recites the following:
“fee analysis module… recommends”
Of claim 13 recites the following:
“data import module … applies”
recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed
computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to
perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the specification is not clear in providing the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the functions of the data extractor and the visualizer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the
corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention 2.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a data normalization module”, “a fee analysis module”, “an error detection module”, “percentile-based fee adjustment module”, “patient feedback analysis module”, and “data import module” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Programmed computer functions require a computer programmed with an “algorithm” to perform the function. Because element “a data normalization module”, “a fee analysis module”, “an error detection module”, “percentile-based fee adjustment module”, “patient feedback analysis module”, and “data import module” relates to specific functions that must be performed by a special purpose computer, the supporting specification must specifically identify the structure (including an algorithm for specialized functions) that performs the claimed functions of the above-mentioned claim elements.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency of claim 5 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain the recitation a data normalization module”, “a fee analysis module”, “an error detection module”, “percentile-based fee adjustment module”, “patient feedback analysis module”, and “data import module.” However, applicant’s specification describes no particular manner in how exactly “a data normalization module”, “a fee analysis module”, “an error detection module”, “percentile-based fee adjustment module”, “patient feedback analysis module”, and “data import module” performs their respective functions. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency of claim 5 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 5-14 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 5-14).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
a data import module configured to retrieve multiple fee data sets from independent sources for a specified geographic location;
a data normalization module to normalize the fee data sets;
a fee analysis module that compares a practice's existing fees to percentile-based target fees derived from the normalized data sets and generates recommendations to adjust the fees toward a target percentile;
an error detection module that identifies inconsistencies within imported data and alerts users to correct missing data for accuracy in analysis; and
a reporting module that presents adjusted fees, expected revenue impact, and target percentile positioning for user approval or modification.
These steps for analyzing and structuring procedure fee increases, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from practically being performed in the mind through the evaluation and determination of procedure fee increases. This could be analogized to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Historically, this is analogous to a human analyst who compiled fee data on a clipboard, calculated percentiles, checked for errors, and suggested revenue changes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claim 5, 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 a data import module; a data normalization module; a fee analysis module; an error detection module; and, a reporting module 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 retrieve multiple fee data sets from independent sources for a specified geographic location amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the retrieving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 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, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of a data import module; a data normalization module; a fee analysis module; an error detection module; and, a reporting module; e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of retrieve multiple fee data sets from independent sources for a specified geographic location, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
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 generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 6-14 reciting particular aspects for analyzing and structuring procedure fee increases such as
[Claim 6] wherein the error detection module validates data by comparing imported fees and procedure counts with historical data stored in a database to identify inaccuracies;
[Claim 7] wherein the fee analysis module provides a breakdown of revenue potential for each fee adjustment based on current and projected patient visit frequency;
[Claim 8] wherein the error detection module identifies missing demographic data that are necessary for accurate revenue predictions;
[Claim 9] a percentile-based fee adjustment module that allows adjustments to fees based on percentile target thresholds selected by a practitioner;
[Claim 10] wherein the reporting module displays revenue changes based on selected percentile goals across one or more stages;
[Claim 11] a patient feedback analysis module that calculates optimal fee adjustments based on historical acceptance rates and insurance provider feedback trends;
[Claim 12] wherein the fee analysis module recommends fee stages over a user-defined timeframe to gradually increase fees and minimize patient dissatisfaction;
[Claim 13] wherein the data import module applies data normalization techniques to adjust for fee variations across multiple sources and formats;
[Claim 14] an override feature allowing users to manually adjust individual fees despite overall percentile-based recommendations;
these italicized portions covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Theses identified limitations merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans, even with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 6-13 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 6 (error detection module); claim 7 (the fee analysis module); claim 8 (the error detection module); claim 9 (a percentile-based fee adjustment module); claim 10 (the reporting module); claim 11 (a patient feedback analysis module); claim 12 (the fee analysis module); and, claim 13 (the data import module) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 6-13 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, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolize any software that automates fee analysis, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). A patent is meant to protect a specific way of doing something, not the result itself (as presently claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US20230140931A1).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses a data import module configured to retrieve multiple fee data sets from independent sources for a specified geographic location ([0178] “The FSU will then automatically update and balance fees based on the dental office geographical location once prompted.”)
a data normalization module to normalize the fee data sets ([0163] “The automatic EOB posting module 1157” [0164] “formatting of the EOBs for normalization.”)
a fee analysis module that compares a practice's existing fees to percentile-based target fees derived from the normalized data sets and generates recommendations to adjust the fees toward a target percentile ([0139] “The system may then compare the calculated co-pay amounts with historical co-pay amounts of previously processed insurance claims for the identified dental procedures in the database of processed dental insurance claims for other patients with the same dental insurance coverage by the first and second insurance providers.” [0048] “In one scenario, the first insurance company pays for 50% of the crown and the second insurance company pays the other 50%.” [0179] “The fee schedule updater module 1162, alerts the dental office if it discovers that an insurance carrier fee schedule updated fee is higher than the dental office's master fee schedule so that the dental office can make the adjustment.”)
an error detection module that identifies inconsistencies within imported data and alerts users to correct missing data for accuracy in analysis ([0151] “The system may identify potential errors and/or provide suggestions for improving a claim in real time during the claim creation process.” [0153] “The portal robot module 1153 runs automatically, thereby saving the dental office staff the 1-4 hours per day while also reducing errors and allowing the dental office to receive payment sooner.”)
a reporting module that presents adjusted fees, expected revenue impact, and target percentile positioning for user approval or modification ([0142] “The system may then generate a treatment plan […] a total expected cost of each of the dental procedures, coverage amounts to be paid by one or both or the combination of the insurance companies, and/or a portion of the total expected cost of each of the dental procedures to be paid for by the patient based on the adjusted co-pay amount of each of the identified dental procedures. The amount to be paid by the patient may be presented as a specific value (e.g., dollar amount), a range of amounts, a best-case amount, a worst-case amount, or as an amount or range coupled with a confidence level.” [0196] “flag the claim (or updated/recommended claim) for review and approval before submission”)
No prior Art Rejection
Regarding claims 6-14, no prior art rejection is being presented at this time.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Cutler, D., Wikler, E., & Basch, P. (2012). Reducing administrative costs and improving the health care system.
This reference is relevant because it discloses analyzing and structuring medical procedure fee increases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights