DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed May 11, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1 and 18:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent claim 1 falls within the statutory category of method
Independent claim 18 falls within the statutory category of machine
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1 and 18 (claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in the independent claims (claim 1 being representative) is:
A method for processing an audit of at least one medication prescription, comprising:
receiving, , an audit request comprising an indication of the at least one medication prescription being audited;
And responsive to receiving the audit request: automatically identifying, one or more files associated with one or more documents, wherein the one or more documents are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited;
automatically retrieving, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents;
and automatically generating, , an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein the audit document comprises the one or more files associated with the the one or more documents and data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited
wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request;
and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying , a current status of the audit of the at least one medication prescription being audited, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled.
This abstract idea is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is following rules and instructions to process an audit of a medication prescription (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II)
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claims 1 and 18 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claim 1 and 18 the additional elements are:
a processor
a database
a user interface
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a processor, is performing the abstract idea and stated as general purpose computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it”
The additional element, a database, is applied as “apply-it” as a tool or equivalent to gather data
The additional element, a user interface, is applied as “apply-it” as a tool or equivalent to display data
Accordingly, claims 1 and 18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional element which provide significantly more for the same reasons given in prong 2A-2 above. The claims are patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-17 and 19-20:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):The dependent claims 2-17 fall within the statutory category of method. The dependent claims 19-20 fall within the statutory category of machine.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-17 and 19-20 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claim 1 and 18 abstract idea by (1) further limiting the types of data and user input and (2) further limiting verifying accuracy of the audit document, (3) the appeal of the document, and (4) risk of audit information. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is This abstract idea is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is following rules and instructions to process an audit of a medication prescription (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II)
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 2-17 and 19-20 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In the dependent claims the additional elements not already recited in the independent claims are:
a pharmacy benefit manager server
an artificial intelligence algorithm
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a pharmacy benefit manager server, is is applied as “apply-it” as a tool or equivalent to gather data
The additional element, an artificial intelligence algorithm, is applied as “apply-it” as a tool or equivalent to analyze data
Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional element which provide significantly more for the same reasons given in prong 2A-2 above. The claims are patent ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe III et. al (hereinafter Rowe) (US8489411B1) in view of Patel (US20210050078A1) and in view of Samples et. al (hereinafter Samples) (US20240249228Al)
As per claim 1, Rowe teaches:
A method for processing an audit of at least one medication prescription, comprising: (Col. 1 lines 19-21 discloses, “This invention relates to the processing and reimbursement of insurance claims. More specifically, it relates to the monitoring and auditing of reimbursed prescription claims in the pharmaceutical industry.”)
receiving, at a processor, an audit request comprising an indication of the at least one medication prescription being audited …[…]…of the at least one medication prescription being audited (Col. 12 lines 1-6 discloses, “Finally, step 308 is invoked where the comments/notations explaining the nature of the flagged transactions and/or any corrective measures to be taken may be placed in a report to be transmitted to or accessed by the party requesting the audit information (e.g., pharmacy, PBM, payer system, host server provider, etc.)” and see Col. 6 lines 45-51 discloses, “The auditing process of example embodiments of the invention may be conducted periodically or as requested. In alternative embodiments of the invention, the auditing process may occur for each transaction in real-time or near real-time upon receipt of the adjudicated claim by the spread auditing module 123.” And see Col. 7 lines 15-19 discloses, “Similarly, the host server 104 may be any processor-driven 15 device that is configured for receiving and fulfilling requests related to prescription claim transactions. The host server 104 may therefore include a processor 126, a memory 128, input/ output (“I/O”) interface(s) 130 and a network interface 132.” And see also Col. 4 lines 41-60 / examiner notes the disclosure states a real time auditing process occurs from a party requesting the audit information where prescription claim information will include prescription the drug, NDC number, dosage etc. therefore indications of the prescription being audited)
However, Rowe III does not explicitly teach:
and responsive to receiving the audit request: automatically identifying, using the processor, one or more files associated with one or more documents in a database in communication with the processor, wherein the one or more documents are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited; automatically retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents;
…[…]…and automatically generating, using the processor, an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein the audit document comprises the one or more files associated with the one or more documents and data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited.
wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request; and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit …[…]…,the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled.
However, Patel does teach:
and responsive to receiving the audit request: automatically identifying, using the processor, one or more files associated with one or more documents in a database in communication with the processor, wherein the one or more documents are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited; automatically retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents; (see [0150] discloses, “A claim is an instrument , document , or process , such as an invoice or bill , by which a Healthcare Provider provides a list of medical codes that correspond with the care provided to a patient and submits the instrument for a Payer for getting paid for the service provided .”[0112] discloses, “. Once the medication prescription has been made by the Healthcare Provider , the prescription and the details of the prescription along with the details of the receiving party ( which is the pharmacy ) is recorded in centralized database 45 by the Control Manager 410. The Healthcare Provider , Control Manager 410 , and the Pharmacy post the event details to the blockchain . The posting and recording have several benefits , among which are transparency as well as fraud protection preventing a patient to fulfill the same medication , more than once.” And see [0028] discloses, “FIG . 14 is a block diagram of an automated audit process , according to the embodiments of the present invention” and see [0203]/ examiner notes the prescription data is a part of the claims transaction data utilized for claims which are as given e.g. requested by regulatory bodies to be audited in samples as disclosed automatically through the blockchain system and claims can be documents and documents are files as they are stored data on a computer. )
…[…]…and automatically generating, using the processor, an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein the audit document comprises the one or more files associated with the one or more documents and data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited. ([0203] discloses, “At 1401 , an audit process is initiated . The system prepares the claims for audit by screening claims based on a criterion and organizing them . The screening criteria include screening by dates , quarters , a particular month , a certain Healthcare Provider , the entire practice , for a specific patient , or for a specific clinic or group . The criterion may also be determined based on a regulatory agency requirement of the type of data set to be audited” and see [0221] discloses, “At 1415 , The processor of the system would then cause the system to prepare an electronic audit note . This audit note would include a summary of the audit , such as types of criterion tested , results of each test , number of Passes and Fails , attempts at second passes , additional notes added or obtained from central database and blockchain , any data changes or attempts made to change or tamper the data , and other desired results for an audit note that is either desired by the user or required to be on an audit note by a regulatory agency or audit note based on industry standard practices.” / examiner notes since this note is stored in the central database it is considered a digital document which includes the claim which can be a document thus considered a file as it is a stored data on a computer)
wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request; ([0203] discloses, “At 1401 , an audit process is initiated . The system prepares the claims for audit by screening claims based on a criterion and organizing them . The screening criteria include screening by dates , quarters , a particular month , a certain Healthcare Provider , the entire practice , for a specific patient , or for a specific clinic or group . The criterion may also be determined based on a regulatory agency requirement of the type of data set to be audited” and see [0221] discloses, “At 1415 , The processor of the system would then cause the system to prepare an electronic audit note . This audit note would include a summary of the audit , such as types of criterion tested , results of each test , number of Passes and Fails , attempts at second passes , additional notes added or obtained from central database and blockchain , any data changes or attempts made to change or tamper the data , and other desired results for an audit note that is either desired by the user or required to be on an audit note by a regulatory agency or audit note based on industry standard practices.” / examiner notes since this note is stored in the central database it is considered a digital document which includes the claim which can be a document thus considered a file as it is a stored data on a computer and includes associated prescription information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings with Patel’s teachings, the motivation being Rowe discloses, adjudication of prescription claims to a decision as previously cited to improve routing quickly, accurately, and consistently (e.g. see Col 4-5) and Patel also teaches the adjudication of claims such as prescription related claims to a decision as previously cited to improve accuracy and efficiency (e.g. see [0038]) therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the general computer systems function the same and the workflow of identifying audit documentation related to claims data inclusive of prescription information and generating an audit document would improve accuracy and efficiency by reducing resources utilizing the computer with no unpredictable results as both disclosures include auditing steps taken to complete audits.
However, Patel also does not explicitly teach:
and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit…[…]…, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled.
However, Samples does teach:
and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit…[…]…, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled. ([0079] discloses, “For example, the user interface 600 includes information regarding a number of audit responses that are past due, a number of audits that are completed, a number of audits that are in progress, and a number of audits that have not been started.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings and Patel’s teachings with Samples teachings as previously cited, the motivation being Rowe discloses, adjudication of prescription claims to a decision to make sure PBM systems are calculating spread values correctly (e.g. see Col. 1) as previously cited and Patel also teaches the adjudication of claims such as prescription related claims to a decision to make sure handling is transparent and proper (see e.g. [0005]) as previously cited and Samples teaches analogous auditing in a healthcare setting to ensure proper patient care and cost (see e.g. [0001]) therefore it would be predictable to utilize a general purpose computer in all the cited art to improve the efficiency and transparency of care and cost by displaying the audit progress and status.
As per claim 2, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a user interface in communication with the processor, user input related to one or more of: the one or more documents or the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited. (Col. 5 lines 13-30 discloses, “To enable the provider to input claims for electronic transmission to the claim processing system and payer, the pharmacy POS device 102 may comprise Software that receives claim data entered by a user through a graphical user interface (GUI). In one example embodiment, no claim processing Software resides on the pharmacy POS device 102, other than an Internet browser, because the GUI and one or more interfaces for inputting claim data are stored by the claim processing system and remotely accessible by the pharmacy POS device 102 via an Internet connection, satellite or cellular network, LAN, WAN, or the like. Using the GUI information such as a patient’s name, birth date, address, telephone number and other identifying information is entered with claim-specific information, Such as drug prescription or medical service or procedure. The identity of the pharmacy is also included in the claim data along with additional information known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The claim data fields may be defined by a particular payer such that the pharmacy POS device 102 should provide only the claim data requested by the payer to which the claim is transmitted. The claim data may also be defined by a preestablished standard or transaction format well known to those of skill in the art. Once the claim is entered, it is trans mitted to the host server 104 via any of the methods described above. The claim is then edited by the host server 104 and/or forwarded by the host server 104 to the appropriate pharmacy benefit management service (PBM) 107 and/or payer system 108.”)
As per claim 3, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the user input comprises an indication of the one or more documents associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited. (Col. 5 lines 13-30 discloses, “To enable the provider to input claims for electronic transmission to the claim processing system and payer, the pharmacy POS device 102 may comprise Software that receives claim data entered by a user through a graphical user interface (GUI). In one example embodiment, no claim processing Software resides on the pharmacy POS device 102, other than an Internet browser, because the GUI and one or more interfaces for inputting claim data are stored by the claim processing system and remotely accessible by the pharmacy POS device 102 via an Internet connection, satellite or cellular network, LAN, WAN, or the like. Using the GUI information such as a patient’s name, birth date, address, telephone number and other identifying information is entered with claim-specific information, Such as drug prescription or medical service or procedure. The identity of the pharmacy is also included in the claim data along with additional information known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The claim data fields may be defined by a particular payer such that the pharmacy POS device 102 should provide only the claim data requested by the payer to which the claim is transmitted. The claim data may also be defined by a preestablished standard or transaction format well known to those of skill in the art. Once the claim is entered, it is trans mitted to the host server 104 via any of the methods described above. The claim is then edited by the host server 104 and/or forwarded by the host server 104 to the appropriate pharmacy benefit management service (PBM) 107 and/or payer system 108.”)
As per claim 4, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the audit document comprises processing, using the processor, the audit request to derive the at least the portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited. (Col. 6 lines 40-47 discloses, “Further, in an example embodiment of the invention, the audits may be conducted in batch format and a report may be generated with analysis on one or more adjudicated claims. In a batch mode, the auditing process conducted by the spread auditing module 123 may be done retrospectively on previous adjudicated claims that are stored in a database. The auditing process of example embodiments of the invention may be conducted periodically or as requested.” And see Col. 11 lines 65-67 and Col. 12 lines 1- 6 discloses, “FIG. 3, in step 306, the comments/notations are stored with (or otherwise associated with) the transaction data (e.g., adjudicated claim data, spread auditing result data, etc.) for future reference and association. Finally, step 308 is invoked where the comments/notations explaining the nature of the flagged transactions and/or any corrective measures to be taken may be placed in a report to be transmitted to or accessed by the party requesting the audit information (e.g., pharmacy, PBM, payer system, host server provider, etc.)”) / examiner notes the disclosure gives e.g. to generation of an audit which may be based on request into a report with the audit details and inputs)
As per claim 5, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more documents comprises querying the database, using the processor, with a reference identifier associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited to identify the one or more documents. (Col. 8 lines 17-40 discloses, “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram flowchart showing the process of monitoring and auditing the reimbursed claim in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. As shown in the example embodiment of FIG. 2, the process starts at step 202 where an adjudicated claim previously received at a host server and stored in a database associated with the host server is retrieved (or imported) to undergo the spread auditing process. In an example embodiment of the invention, a customers (e.g., pharmacy) initial reimbursement claim(s), having been adjudicated by a PBM (e.g., insurance processor or group of insurance processors), and may be stored (or identified) in a spread evaluation table located in one or more databases associated with the spread auditing module. In an alternative embodiment of the invention, rather than being retrieved from a database, an adjudicated claim may undergo the auditing process in real-time or near real time once received at the host server. At the host server, the spread auditing module may parse the relevant data to be utilized in the auditing process. For example, the prescription information (e.g., drug name, quantity, date fulfilled, etc.) may be extracted from the previously adjudicated claim. The specific amount (or cost) reimbursed by the PBM for that particular transaction may also be extracted from the adjudicated claim.” / examiner notes under BRI the process of parsing and extracting information specific to identifier references such as e.g. drug name, quantity, etc. is used to identify the adjudicated claim documentation.)
As per claim 6, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the audit request further comprises the reference identifier associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited. (Col. 8 lines 17-40 discloses, “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram flowchart showing the process of monitoring and auditing the reimbursed claim in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. As shown in the example embodiment of FIG. 2, the process starts at step 202 where an adjudicated claim previously received at a host server and stored in a database associated with the host server is retrieved (or imported) to undergo the spread auditing process. In an example embodiment of the invention, a customers (e.g., pharmacy) initial reimbursement claim(s), having been adjudicated by a PBM (e.g., insurance processor or group of insurance processors), and may be stored (or identified) in a spread evaluation table located in one or more databases associated with the spread auditing module. In an alternative embodiment of the invention, rather than being retrieved from a database, an adjudicated claim may undergo the auditing process in real-time or near real time once received at the host server. At the host server, the spread auditing module may parse the relevant data to be utilized in the auditing process. For example, the prescription information (e.g., drug name, quantity, date fulfilled, etc.) may be extracted from the previously adjudicated claim. The specific amount (or cost) reimbursed by the PBM for that particular transaction may also be extracted from the adjudicated claim.”)
As per claim 7, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a user interface in communication with the processor, an indication from a user verifying an accuracy of the audit document. (Col. 11 lines 11-52 discloses, “FIG.3 shows a block diagram flowchart showing the process of providing comment or explanation of exceptions to the expected audit values in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. In an example embodiment of the invention, the PBM (or specific payer system) has the ability to provide comments or explanations for the discrepancy Such as an exception(s) to the contracted rates detected by the spread auditing module. In an example embodiment of the invention, the explanations may be entered through a graphical user interface online via a web browser and hosted by the host server or other data center. As shown in FIG.3, the exception reporting process begins at step 302 where an adjudicated claim that had been previously flagged as not being reimbursed according to the contracted obligations is presented, via an online user interface, to a representative of the PBM (or specific payer system) that adjudicated the claim. Next step 304 is invoked, where the representative of the PBM (or specific payer system) has the ability to enter comments on the transaction through the user interface to provide an explanation relating to the adjudicated claim. For example, an explanation may include noting a contractual obligation unaccounted for in the auditing system or some other explanation relating to the detected spread calculation discrepancy. Other comments that may be logged by the representative may include the corrective measures to be taken to fulfill the necessary contractual obligations of the PBM (or payer system) with regard to the flagged claim and/or other relevant information relating to the adjudicated claim or the contractual obligations of the PBM (or payer system). Explanations of flagged transactions may be applied to each individual adjudicated claim or adjudicated claims in bulk. Thus, comments may be global in nature to all flagged adjudicated claims that are related in Subject matter, error detected, or in Some other way that results in the representative providing the same or similar explanation to those adjudicated claims. In alternative embodiments of the invention, the comments/explanations may be automated and provided by an automated response system, which determines the category of the detected discrepancy and determines the appropriate response which may be retrieved from a database or automatically generated, depending on the complexity of the necessary comments/explanation indicated for inclusion.”)
As per claim 8, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting the audit document from the processor to a pharmacy benefit manager server. (Col.12 lines 1-6 discloses, “Finally, step 308 is invoked where the comments/notations explaining the nature of the flagged transactions and/or any corrective measures to be taken may be placed in a report to be transmitted to or accessed by the party requesting the audit information (e.g. pharmacy, PBM, payer system, host server provider, etc.)”)
As per claim 9, Rowe teaches:
…[…]…of the at least one medication prescription…[…]…
However, Rowe and Patel do not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit …[…]…being audited denoting one or more of the audit request being received, the audit document being submitted, an initial response to the audit document being received, an appeal document being submitted, and a final determination of an appeal being received.
However, Samples teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit …[…]…being audited denoting one or more of the audit request being received, the audit document being submitted, an initial response to the audit document being received, an appeal document being submitted, and a final determination of an appeal being received. ([0079] discloses, “For example, the user interface 600 includes information regarding a number of audit responses that are past due, a number of audits that are completed, a number of audits that are in progress, and a number of audits that have not been started.” / Per MPEP § 2143.03, Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings and Patel’s teachings with Samples teachings as previously cited for the same reasons given in claim 1.
As per claim 10, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the processor, an audit response comprising an indication of a subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has a discrepancy; and updating the database, using the processor, to denote that the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited has the discrepancy. (Col. 10 lines 25-34 discloses, “If it has been determined that the spread value associated with the adjudicated claim is not within the thresholds set by the tolerance parameters (i.e., an unacceptable discrepancy or difference), then step 214 is invoked to store or (log) the adjudicated claim and provide the adjudicated claim information to be part of an exceptions report to be provided (or made accessible) to the PBM (or specific payer system) responsible for adjudicating that particular reimbursement claim.” And see Col. 9 lines 38-49 discloses, “In an example embodiment of the invention, the actual spread percentage (or monetary value) and/or the expected spread percentage (or monetary value) may be retrieved from a database, or alternatively, either or both of the actual spread percentage (or monetary value) and the expected spread per centage (or monetary value) may be calculated based on information contained in the adjudicated claim, AWP values associated with the adjudicated claim, policy data associated with the PBM or a specific payer system, etc. Such informa tion used in calculation may be retrieved from one or more data storage locations including the spread evaluation table or other database location”)
As per claim 11, Rowe teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the audit response further comprises a clawback value associated with the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy. (Col. 10 lines discloses, “Step 216 may also be invoked to calculate the actual discrepancy between the amount paid and the amount due and Such discrepancy along with the logged transaction may be reported in step 218, which is discussed above. For the purposes of providing example of the detection and auditing of spread discrepancies, the following example is provided which ignores transaction costs and other charges associated with the reimbursement claim adjudication for simplicity. An adjudicated claim for drug A is received and stored at the host server and its reimbursed value is S55. The AWP corresponding to the drug is retrieved and is detected to be $100 and, according to the retrieved policy data, the payer is contractually obligated to reimburse 50% of the drug cost, or S50. Therefore, ignoring other expenses and/or charges for simplicity, the additional S5 is determined to be the PBM's spread charge that was paid by the payer system the PBM represents. At this point the contractual obligation between the payer system and the PBM for the relevant transaction type is access and the contractual spread rate is calculated. If the calculated spread is $4.97 and the tolerance parameter is set to ignore discrepancies of +/-S0.05, the transaction is not flagged. However if the calculated spread is S4, and the tolerance parameter is set to ignore discrepancies of +/-S0.05, the difference between the actual and calculated spread value is too great. In that situation, that transaction is flagged for reporting to the adjudicating PBM (or specific payer system or both) for explanation as to the discrepancy or correction of the discrepancy.”)
As per claim 12, Rowe does not teach:
The method of claim 10, wherein the discrepancy comprises an indication of insufficient documentation related to the subset of at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy.
However, Patel does teach:
The method of claim 10, wherein the discrepancy comprises an indication of insufficient documentation related to the subset of at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy. ([0148] discloses, “In addition to benefiting the parties in dispute resolution , the present invention also aids the parties in expeditious exchange of information , such as in real - time , that may be needed to process a claim . At times , a claim may be missing details that are required by the payer to process the claim . Certain Payers in the past have taken advantage of the missing information to delay the processing of the claim or simply not respond . The present invention logs all data centrally and alternatively in a blockchain . As such , the status of the claim , the processing timeline , along with all content of the claims are available to all the parties and optionally available in real - time . A party that needs the missing information can flag the claim as such and all the relevant parties would see which piece of information is missing and have the ability to respond or post the missing information . Alternatively , the Control / Verification Manager 809 may send a message or alert to the parties that holds the missing information such that they may expeditious respond or post the missing information thereby expediting the whole process for claim payments.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings with Patel’s teachings for the same reasons given for claim 1.
As per claims 18-20, they are system claims which repeat the same limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5, the corresponding method claims, as a collection of elements as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Rowe, Patel, and Samples as well as motivations to combine disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claims 1, 2, and 5, it is respectfully submitted that they provide the underlying structural elements that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 1, 2, and 5.
Claim 13 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe III et. al (hereinafter Rowe) (US8489411B1) in view of Patel (US20210050078A1) in view of Samples et. al (hereinafter Samples) (US20240249228Al) in further view of Mensh (US20250095815A1)
As per claim 13, Rowe, Patel, and Samples do not teach:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: identifying, using the processor, one or more prescription appeal documents in the database, wherein the one or more prescription appeal documents are associated with the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy; retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more prescription appeal documents; and generating, using the processor, an appeal document related to the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy, wherein the appeal document comprises the one or more prescription appeal documents and appeal data associated with the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy.
However, Mensh does teach:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: identifying, using the processor, one or more prescription appeal documents in the database, wherein the one or more prescription appeal documents are associated with the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy; retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more prescription appeal documents; ([0021] discloses, “The present invention provides a method of creating a request pertaining to a prescription drug. The method includes drafting an appeal, after a claim requesting at least partial insurance coverage of a cost associated with the prescription drug has been submitted to an insurance benefits manager, a notification that prior authorization has been denied. A secured computer system is provided for enabling the method.”) and generating, using the processor, an appeal document related to the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy, wherein the appeal document comprises the one or more prescription appeal documents and appeal data associated with the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy. ([01385] discloses, “The present inventive method facilitates creation of a letter of medical necessity, an appeal, or request for formulary exception for prescriptions for a patient based upon a unique combination of factors from potentially each of these sources.” And see [0218] discloses, “In this hypothetical case, the physician is filing an appeal so that the patient may have access to the representative pharmaceutical, windogo, which is in this case, being prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis.” And see [0380] discloses, “As before, the user can review the compiled information included in the final letter 200 including the business letterhead 28, suggested greeting 201, patient information 110 (specifically bibliographic information 111, 112, insurance information 115, 116), statement of purpose 202, summary of diagnosis 203, further details 204, summary of request for treatment 205, and conclusion 206.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings, Patel’s teachings, and Samples teachings with Mensh’s teachings, the motivation being Rowe teaches claim adjudication as previously cited for prescriptions as do Patel and Samples use computers for auditing hospital related data such as prescriptions and site data and Mensh teaches claim adjudication for prescriptions inclusive of appeals therefore it would be predictable to use the computer elements in Rowe to follow the same process whether it’s an appeal document or audit document with improved transparency to final determination.
Claim 14 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe III et. al (hereinafter Rowe) (US8489411B1) in view of Patel (US20210050078A1) in view of Samples et. al (hereinafter Samples) (US20240249228Al) in further view of Mensh (US20250095815A1) and in even further view of Sutters et. al (hereinafter Sutters) (US20230197210A1)
As per claim 14, Rowe, Patel, Samples, and Mensh do not teach:
The method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting the appeal document from the processor to a pharmacy benefit manager server.
However, Sutters does teach:
The method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting the appeal document from the processor to a pharmacy benefit manager server. ([0042] discloses, “Healthcare requests may include, for example, a prescription benefit check request and/or an electronic prior authorization request (e.g., an electronic prior authorization initiation request, an electronic prior authorization request, an electronic prior authorization appeal request, and/or an electronic prior authorization cancel request formatted under the NCPDP Script Standard for example).” And see [0051] discloses, “The healthcare request processing module 156 may be a software application, including, but not limited to, a dedicated program configured for receiving electronic healthcare requests (including electronic prior authorization requests and/or prescription benefit check requests) from prescriber/healthcare provider computers 102 associated with (e.g., located within or otherwise under the control and administration of) prescribers of medication (e.g., physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, hospitals, physicians offices, clinics, or any other person or entity legally authorized to prescribe medications, products, or services to patients) either directly or via an EMR vendor/aggregator system 115, and pharmacy computers 108 associated with (e.g., located within or otherwise under the control and administration of) pharmacies, conducting edit or analysis actions on the electronic healthcare requests, and, in some situations, forwarding the electronic healthcare requests to a pharmacy claims processor computer 106 associated with (e.g., located within or otherwise under the control and administration of) a pharmacy claims processor or benefits provider (e.g., pharmacy benefits manager (PBM), insurance provider, government insurance provider (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid)) or a prior authorization clearinghouse.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s, Patels, Samples, and Mensh’s teachings with Sutter’s teachings, the motivation being Rowe already communicates with a PBM as previously cited therefore it would be predictable to communicate any audit document including appeal’s in Sutter as needed through a general computer in all reference disclosures as they would function the same as the audit documents transmitted.
Claim 15 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe III et. al (hereinafter Rowe) (US8489411B1) in view of Patel (US20210050078A1) in view of Samples et. al (hereinafter Samples) (US20240249228Al) in further view of Mensh (US20250095815A1) and in even further view of Pinsonneault et. al (hereinafter Pinsonneault) (US10742654B1)
As per claim 15, Rowe, Patel, Samples, and Mensh do not teach:
The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, at the processor, an appeal response comprising an indication of a final determination related to the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy; and updating the database, using the processor, to denote that the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy has had a final determination.
However, Pinsonneault does teach:
The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, at the processor, an appeal response comprising an indication of a final determination related to the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy; and updating the database, using the processor, to denote that the subset of the at least one medication prescription being audited that has the discrepancy has had a final determination. (Col. 26 lines 10-61 discloses, an example of a type of request such as an appeal request with corresponding information that is then given denial or approval and reasoning why )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s, Patel’s, Samples, and Mensh’s teachings with Pinsonneault’s teachings, the motivation being Rowe already teaches updating and storing the audit information in databases as previously cited, therefore it would be predictable to combine with Pinsonneault as any document of choice can be saved which may relate to an audit such as appeal documents with discrepancies and final determination.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe III et. al (hereinafter Rowe) (US8489411B1) in view of Patel (US20210050078A1) in view of Samples et. al (hereinafter Samples) (US20240249228Al) in further view of Mensh (US20250095815A1) and in even further view of Samarin et. al (hereinafter Samarin) (US10776890B1)
As per claim 16, Rowe, Patel, Samples, and Mensh do not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising processing, using an artificial intelligence algorithm executing on the processor, data associated with the at least one medication prescription to determine one or more characteristics of the at least one medication prescription that is likely to be audited.
However, Samarin does teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising processing, using an artificial intelligence algorithm executing on the processor, data associated with the at least one medication prescription to determine one or more characteristics of the at least one medication prescription that is likely to be audited. (figs. 10A-10E and Col. 2 lines 35-38 and Col. 23 lines 53-67 and Col. 24 lines 1-24 discloses, using machine learning models to determine likelihood of fraud waste abuse auditing based on things like pharmacy, drug data etc.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s, Patel’s, Samples, and Mensh’s teachings with Samarin’s teachings, the motivation being the artificial intelligence algorithms in Samarin would improve the efficiency and accuracy of audits and improve transparency which Rowe teaches is a concern (see Col. 1 lines 25-45)
As per claim 17, Rowe does not teach:
The method of claim 16, further comprising generating, using the artificial intelligence algorithm executing on the processor, a risk score associated with the at least one medication prescription, wherein the risk score relates to a likelihood of the at least one medication prescription being audited.
However, Samarin does teach:
The method of claim 16, further comprising generating, using the artificial intelligence algorithm executing on the processor, a risk score associated with the at least one medication prescription, wherein the risk score relates to a likelihood of the at least one medication prescription being audited. (Figs. 10A-10E and see Col. 2 lines 35-38 and Col. 23 lines 53-67 and Col. 24 lines 1-24 and see Col. discloses, using machine learning models to determine likelihood through risk scoring of fraud waste abuse auditing based on things like pharmacy, drug data etc.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rowe’s teachings with Samarin’s teachings, for the same reasons given above for claim 16.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
The applicant argues on pages 4-12 of the submitted remarks that the claims under 35 U.S.C § 101 are eligible for the following:
II. Section 101 Rejections
The Office Action has rejected claims 1-20, including independent claims 1 and 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of "an abstract idea without significantly more". (Office Action, p. 3). In particular, the Office Action has asserted that the judicial exception of an abstract idea "is not integrated into a practical application" because the claims do "not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more" than the judicial exception. (Office Action, pp. 3-4). The Office Action has further asserted that the abstract idea purportedly recited by the claims cover "certain methods of organizing human activity" that are "following rules and instructions to process an audit of a medication prescription". (Office Action, p. 3).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite "certain methods of organizing human activity", Applicant has amended the claims in order to clarify their scope and expedite prosecution, and respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to patentable subject matter because they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Amended independent claims 1 and 18 (and claims 2-17 and 19-20) are eligible under the two-part test for subject matter eligibility. As set forth in MPEP § 2106, there are three pathways to eligibility for claims that satisfy Step 1 of the test, or fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Pathway A is a streamlined analysis for claims whose eligibility is self-evident, whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2 of the test. Pathway B involves claims that are not directed to an abstract idea, thus failing to satisfy Step 2A of the test. Pathway C involves claims that are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, but recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus satisfying Step 2B of the test. Claims 1-20 are patent-eligible under any one of these three pathways, so long as the test for subject matter eligibility is properly applied. While the below discussion focuses on independent claims 1 and 18, it should be understood that at least a similar analysis applies to the dependent claims as well.
A. The Eligibility of Claims 1-20 is Self-Evident
Claims 1-20 are patent-eligible under the streamlined analysis of Pathway A. MPEP § 2106.06(a) states: "A streamlined eligibility analysis can be used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it." Examples of patent-eligible subject matter that do not require the full eligibility analysis include: (1) "a complex manufactured industrial product or process," (2) a process for hydrolysis of fat, and (3) particular machines like a paper- making machine, an internal combustion engine, or "a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships." (MPEP § 2106.06(a)). In each of these examples, meaningful limitations sufficiently confine the recited judicial exception, if any, to a specific, practical application, such that the full eligibility analysis is not needed. (MPEP § 2106.06(a)).
Similarly, the pending claims are directed to a method that, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception but rather, recites a specific, practical application sufficiently confined by meaningful limitations. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites: receiving, at a processor, an audit request comprising an indication of the at least one medication prescription being audited; and responsive to receiving the audit request: automatically identifying, using the processor, one or more files associated with one or more documents in a database in communication with the processor, wherein the one or more documents are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited; automatically retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents; automatically generating, using the processor, an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein the audit document comprises the one or more files associated with the one or more documents and data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request; and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit of the at least one medication prescription being audited, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled.
That is, the claims are directed to clear improvements in technology, e.g., processing an audit of at least one medication prescription at a processor, including automatically identifying one or more files associated with one or more documents that are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited, automatically retrieving the one or more files associated with the one or more documents, automatically generating an audit document that comprises the one or more files associated with the one or more documents and also comprises data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited, where at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request, and responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit of the at least one medication prescription being audited, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled. For example, by automatically identifying and retrieving files associated with documents associated with medication prescription being audited, by automatically generating an audit document including the files, by deriving at least a portion of the data associated with the medication prescription being audited from an audit request, and by displaying a current status of the audit responsive to generating the audit document, the claims clearly do not seek to tie up the alleged abstract idea of "process[ing] an audit of a medication prescription" such that others cannot practice it. As such, for at least the above reasons, the subject matter eligibility of the claims is clearly self-evident, in accordance with Pathway A.
B. The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Claims 1-20 are also patent eligible under Pathway B at least because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The claimed steps of method claim 1, for example, do not recite any concepts for "following rules and instructions" or "organizing human activity" more generally. MPEP § 2106 identifies "following rules or instructions" as an example of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" in "certain methods of organizing human activity". In claim 1, akin to the components that generate new data evidencing patent eligibility in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A. and as identified in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), at least the limitations of "receiving, at a processor, an audit request comprising an indication of the at least one medication prescription being audited", "responsive to receiving the audit request: automatically identifying, using the processor, one or more files associated with one or more documents in a database in communication with the processor, wherein the one or more documents are associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited", "automatically retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents", "automatically generating, using the processor, an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein the audit document comprises the one or more files associated with the one or more documents and data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited, wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request", and "responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit of the at least one medication prescription being audited, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled" do not relate to any managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As such, for at least these reasons, the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent-eligible under Pathway B.
C. The Claims Amount to Significantly More than the Alleged Abstract Idea, and the Alleged Abstract Idea is Integrated into a Practical Application
Even if the pending claims are construed as directed to the alleged abstract idea, the pending claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea since the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and thus, the claims are directed to patentable subject matter under Pathway C.
A claim is directed to patentable subject matter if the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words 'apply it" is not enough for patent eligibility." (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)). However, as in Diamond v. Diehr, a claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea when its recitations add meaningful limits to the abstract idea. (See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)). More specifically, some of the individual steps in Diehr were "routine computer activities or generic functions performed by a computer that taken alone do not add significantly more to the process instructions in the claim. By themselves, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that are well-understood, routine and conventional.... However, when viewing the claim as a whole, the combination of all these steps taken together . . . amount to significantly more . . . because they add meaningful limits" to the abstract idea. (July 201516
Update Appendix 1: Examples, p. 17). The claims of Diehr added meaningful limits to the abstract idea, because "[t]he totality of the steps act[ed] in concert to improve another technical field." (Id. at p. 18).
Similarly, in the pending claims, the totality of the claimed limitations act in concert to improve technology, e.g., the automated processing of an audit of medication prescriptions. While some of the limitations of the claims individually may perform some basic functions of a computer, the limitations of, for example, claim 1, as a whole, add meaningful limits to technology and integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The pending claims do not simply recite a generic computer to apply the alleged abstract idea of "process[ing] an audit of a medication prescription". Instead, the limitations of claim 1 include specific components and operations (e.g., "automatically identifying, using the processor, one or more files associated with one or more documents in a database", "automatically retrieving, from the database to the processor, the one or more files associated with the one or more documents, "automatically generating, using the processor, an audit document related to the at least one medication prescription being audited", and "responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit") that add meaningful limits to the technical field of automated processing of an audit of medication prescriptions. In addition, these meaningful limits do not monopolize the alleged abstract idea.
Moreover, the pending claims are similar to the patent-eligible claim described in Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas document issued by the USPTO on January 7, 2019. Example 42 relates to a method for transmission of notifications when medical records are updated. The exemplary patent-eligible claim in Example 42 recites additional elements that are sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, including converting information from one format into another, usable format, and automatically generating and transmitting a message to users.
Amended claim 1 includes the limitations of "wherein at least a portion of the data associated with the at least one medication prescription being audited is derived from the audit request" and "responsive to generating the audit document, displaying, on a user interface in communication with the processor, a current status of the audit of the at least one medication prescription being audited, the current status denoting that the audit document has been compiled", which are similar to the additional elements of "converting information from one format into another, usable format" and "automatically generating and transmitting a message" of Example 42, respectively. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the pending claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and are therefore directed to patentable subject matter under Pathway C.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are directed to patentable subject matter and therefore, the rejection under Section 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is following rules and instructions to process an audit of a medication prescription (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The MPEP states that the recitation of a computer to execute the claims more quickly does not disprove the claims from being directed to the enumerated subgroupings of abstract ideas and mere automation with a computer is not enough when the computer is merely “apply-it” as applicant even stated in their aforementioned arguments. And the claims are confined to a general purpose computer (see instant application specification paragraph [0019]) and do not claim an improvement to the technology of processing a prescription audit. Moreover, the field of processing a prescription audit as claimed and reflected in the instant application is not reasonably understood to be a technical problem but rather an abstract problem arising in records management activity with a quality and compliance focus. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot bring forth a practical application. Thus the claims have no nexus with Diamond v. Diehr thus do not bring forth significantly more. Were applicant’s line of reasoning correct Alice corp. would have been deemed eligible as It is in improvement in settlement risk mitigation. Further examiner notes the claims do not recite a technical problem confined to the computer with converting to standard formatting in real time as in example 42. There is no nexus with this example reflected in the claims of the instant application as mere manipulation of data is not the same as standardizing formats with steps clearly tied back to a technical problem confined to the computer.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 102/103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art not cited but made of record
US10497077B1 - LaVahn
The present invention is a computer implemented method and system for gathering information from a user related to , filing for , and obtaining government benefits , such as Social Security benefits . The present invention also enables the user to track the benefit application approval process and reminders when certain data or responses are due . There is a feature which enables the user to modify the data submitted for the benefits when circumstances warrant . There is also a decision appeal process feature .
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights