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 .
Status of claims
Claims 10-15 have been reviewed and addressed below.
Claims 1-9, 16-19 has been cancelled.
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 10-15, 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:
Claims 10-15 are drawn to computer implemented method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 10, 13, recite “receiving a patient visiting a physician at a medical clinic”, “accessing an EMR to review the patient health records”, “inputting a public health insurance number”, “sending information on the visit and public insurance health data”, “reviewing criteria based on patient information”, “determining whether the service should be billed to public health coverage or private insurance services”, “if the patient is covered under public health insurance, review coverage rules and inform the EMR to create and send the bill for the patient to the public billing system and submit the bill”, “if the patient is not covered under the public health insurance or has private insurance, review the private insurance services, send the bill the private insurance provider”, “check for health eligibility for the patient of the private insurance”, “inform the approval of the insurance”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover methods of organizing human activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “service engine module”, “API interface”, “billing system”, “computer”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims does not recite the additional element which can be considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 71 that “service engine system comprises a service engine module, a web portal module, an electronic medical records (EMR) module configured to support EMR systems, and an in-person service engine module further comprising an automated in-person in-clinic management system”.
The claims does not recite the additional element which can be considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 11-12, 14-15, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Experton (2014/0207686) in view of Mishra (2016/0103963).
With respect to claim 10 Experton teaches a computer-implemented method of managing public and private insurance service coverage using a Service Engine module, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a patient visiting a physician at a medical clinic; accessing an EMR to review the patient health records (Experton paragraph 51 “a patient visiting a physician's office may wish to provide updated records to the attending physician”);
sending the information on the visit and public insurance health data to the Service Engine module (Experton paragraph 43 “an authentication service may be used to verify identity of a record holder and a healthcare provider”);
reviewing the criteria by the Service Engine module based on patient information; determine whether the service should be billed to public health coverage or private insurance services (Experton paragraph 34 “personalized portal may present a single display area that includes information from a plurality of sources including healthcare practitioners, insurance companies, an entity responsible for payment for services and other providers”, and 35 “The user may access electronic health records related to a transaction or the provision of healthcare services to a patient, and the records accessed may comprise personal health records, such as medical records and insurance records, which may be remotely located on centralized databases embodied in EHR systems 202, 240, and 206 operated by a service provider, insurer or other entity.”);
if the patient is covered under public health insurance, the Service Engine module is further configured to: review coverage rules; and inform the EMR to create and send the bill for the patient to the public billing system through the API interface; and submit the bill to the public billing system (Experton paragraph 34 “personalized portal may present a single display area that includes information from a plurality of sources including healthcare practitioners, insurance companies, an entity responsible for payment for services and other providers” and paragraph 101 “The personalized portal may present a single display area that includes information from a plurality of sources including healthcare practitioners, insurance companies, an entity responsible for payment for services and other providers. EHR information may be combined remotely using a computer system or network server to access a plurality of EHR systems, before filtering and presenting the information to the record owner or provider”);
if the patient is not covered under the public health insurance or has private insurance, the Service Engine module is further configured to: review the private insurance services; send the bill to the private insurance provide via the API interface; check for health eligibility for the patient of the private insurance; and inform the Service Engine module of the approval of the private insurance (Experton paragraph 34 “personalized portal may present a single display area that includes information from a plurality of sources including healthcare practitioners, insurance companies, an entity responsible for payment for services and other providers” and paragraph 101 “The personalized portal may present a single display area that includes information from a plurality of sources including healthcare practitioners, insurance companies, an entity responsible for payment for services and other providers. EHR information may be combined remotely using a computer system or network server to access a plurality of EHR systems, before filtering and presenting the information to the record owner or provider”).
Experton does not teach inputting a public insurance health number.
Mishra teaches or example, and in no way limiting the scope of the invention, the smart healthcare card may be capable of storing one or more types of healthcare information including, but not limited to, patient demographics, for instance first, middle and last name, Date of Birth (DOB), primary care physician name, address, city, country, state/province, postal or zip code, unique medical record number, emergency contacts, telephone number, gender, advance directives, marital status, Social Security Number (SSN), unique driving license number, blood type, organ donor, language or mother tongue (Mishra paragraph 51).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Experton with Mishra at the time of filing with the motivation of improving method for smart healthcare management (Mishra paragraph 74).
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 11 Experton in view of Mishra teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 10 wherein the patient information is selected from a list consisting of patient location, physician location, provincial service rules. (Experton paragraph 85, 102).
Experton does not explicitly teach employment status.
Mishra teaches e system 100 may comprise one or more stakeholder subsystems, namely a patient subsystem 102, an employer subsystem 104 (Mishra paragraph 34).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Experton with Mishra at the time of filing with the motivation of improving method for smart healthcare management (Mishra paragraph 74).
With respect to claim 12 Experton in view of Mishra teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 10 wherein sending the information on the visit and public insurance health data to the Service Engine module is sent through an application program interface (API) (Experton paragraph 104).
With respect to claim 14 Experton in view of Mishra teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 13 wherein sending the information patient service referral to the Service Engine module; informing the EMR system to make a referral to public service, or informing the EMR to make a referral to private service is sent through an API interface (Experton paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 15 Experton in view of Mishra teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 13 wherein the method is configured to record and refine the criteria based on each patient and case and apply to the next patient (Experton paragraph 50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684