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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the group consisting of manage profiles…" in line 19 without previously disclosing a group. The limitation should read “a group consisting of…”. Claims 3-4, 7-8, 12, and 15-16 recite a similar limitation of “the group consisting of…”, each of which does not have a previously disclosed group, and therefore each should read as “a group consisting of”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1 and 8 are drawn to a system, and Claim 16 is drawn to a method (i.e., process), which are all within the four statutory categories. (Step 1 – Yes, the claim falls into one of the statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1 recites:
A healthcare service estimating system comprising:
a plurality of healthcare services' costs;
a listing of healthcare service providers;
a patient application;
a healthcare service provider application;
a patient;
an electronic computing device;
a provider device; and
a communication network;
wherein said plurality of healthcare services' costs are estimates for healthcare services;
wherein said patient application is installed on said electronic computing device;
wherein said patient receives said plurality of healthcare services' costs from said listing of healthcare service providers through said patient application;
wherein said patient application provides said patient a user interface for enabling a user to input healthcare services requirements and receive said plurality of healthcare services' costs from said listing of healthcare service providers;
wherein said healthcare service provider application installed in said provider device; and further wherein said healthcare service provider application having functionalities selected from the group consisting of manage profiles, view patient requests, and respond to quote inquiries of said patient for said estimates for healthcare services.
The series of steps as recited above describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamentally, the method is that of a person receiving a request for a cost estimation of a procedure, such as a patient requesting cost from a provider, and the provider responding with the estimated cost based on the patient’s requirements which encompasses a person interacting with another individual including following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of managing interactions between people.
Claims 8 and 16 recite/describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A analysis – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, independent claims 1, 8, and 16 recite the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea: a patient application, a healthcare service provider application, an electronic computing device, a provider device, a communication network, and a user interface. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the system may be accessed through an application on any smart device or via an internet website (see specification [0027]). The electronic computing device may be a smartphone (see specification [0005]).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A analysis – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well- understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Here, the claim limitations are similar to receiving and sending information over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OJP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll)(i)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps for cost estimation amount to no more than using computer related devices to implement the abstract idea.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Independent claims - NO).
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are directed towards elements used to describe patient and provider applications and the cost estimation process. These elements describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the dependent
claims recite the following additional element beyond the abstract idea: A smartphone. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to
any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not
indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a
technical problem. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an
ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are
directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot
provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the
additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other
technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of
additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Dependent claims - NO).
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Basu et al. (US 2021/0374874) (Hereinafter Basu).
Regarding Claim 1, Basu teaches the following:
A healthcare service estimating system ([0051] The system provides details to the user including provider estimated price and out of pocket costs) comprising:
a plurality of healthcare services' costs ([0051], [0091]: The system provides details to the user including provider estimated price and out of pocket costs);
a listing of healthcare service providers ([0091], [0094], [0096]: an ordered providers list);
a patient application ([0003] an Application Program Interface ("API") supporting the development of Applications);
a healthcare service provider application ([0003] an Application Program Interface ("API") supporting the development of Applications);
a patient ([0053], Fig. 100: the patient);
an electronic computing device (Claim 7: a host computing system comprising one or more computers);
a provider device (Fig. 100 displays a provider or facility device (1)); and
a communication network (Fig. 100: information communicated over the Network (3));
wherein said plurality of healthcare services' costs are estimates for healthcare services ([0051], [0091]: The system provides details to the user including provider estimated price and out of pocket costs);
wherein said patient application is installed on said electronic computing device (Fig. 900: application is downloaded onto the user device as shown);
wherein said patient receives said plurality of healthcare services' costs from said listing of healthcare service providers through said patient application ([0048] The user interface on the user's device displays a user interface ("UI") that presents a stratified matching list of providers, products, services, and locations, along with financing and payment options, and, optionally, any incentives);
wherein said patient application provides said patient a user interface for enabling a user to input healthcare services requirements and receive said plurality of healthcare services' costs from said listing of healthcare service providers ([0048] Users may log-in to the system and initiate searches or browse services, bundles, providers, and pricing. The user interface on the user's device displays a user interface ("UI") that presents a stratified matching list of providers, products, services, and locations, along with financing and payment options, and, optionally, any incentives);
wherein said healthcare service provider application installed in said provider device (Fig. 100, provider application downloaded in provider device as shown at (1)); and
further wherein said healthcare service provider application having functionalities selected from the group consisting of manage profiles ([0073] The system consists of a user with registered profile, aggregate personal information and demographics data), view patient requests, and respond to quote inquiries of said patient for said estimates for healthcare services (Claim 1: in response to receiving the request, generating a communication to the member with the expected out of pocket spend, the quality score of the health service provider, the acceptable plan rates, and the available payment options.).
Regarding Claim 2, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 1 further comprising a server (Claim 7: a host computing system), wherein said server communicates with said patient application (Claim 7: an application (for the patient) executing in memory of the host computing system) and said healthcare service provider application ([0003] an Application Program Interface ("API") supporting the development of Applications) via said communication network (Fig. 100: information communicated over the Network (3)).
Regarding Claim 3, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 2, wherein said server having a patient database including information selected from the group consisting of a patient profile ([0073] a user with registered profile), a login credential ([0048] Users may log-in to the system), a service preference ([0048] and Claim 5: plan preferred service providers. The user initiate searches or browse services, bundles, providers, and pricing.), and a past said quote inquiry of an offered healthcare service (Fig. 600-C: payment transaction request (previously authorized bundle, claim, or bill) is presented to the user).
Regarding Claim 4, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 3, wherein said server having a healthcare service provider database ([0096] the system consists of a provider database) including information selected from the group consisting of said listing of healthcare service providers ([0091], [0094], [0096]: an ordered providers list), said offered healthcare services (Fig. 600-C: payment transaction request (previously authorized bundle, claim, or bill) is presented to the user), said estimates for healthcare services ([0051], [0091]: The system provides details to the user including provider estimated price and out of pocket costs), and automated response configurations for frequently requested services (Claim 1: automatically generating a communication to the member with the expected out of pocket spend, the quality score of the health service provider, the acceptable plan rates, and the available payment options.).
Regarding Claim 5, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 4, wherein said electronic computing device is a smartphone (Fig. 11, Fig. 200-A,B, Fig. 300, Fig. 600-C, Fig. 700, Fig. 900, [0074]: user device is a mobile device).
Regarding Claim 6, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 4 further comprising an automated quote module generating said estimates for healthcare services (Claim 1: automatically generating a communication to the member with the expected out of pocket spend, the quality score of the health service provider, the acceptable plan rates, and the available payment options.).
Regarding Claim 7, Basu further teaches the following:
The healthcare service estimating system of claim 6, wherein said estimates for healthcare services are based on information selected from the group consisting of a provider data, a patient request, a predefined rule, a provider input, and a combination of multiple procedures associated with said estimates for healthcare services ([0048], [0056]: the system then analyzes the uploaded and/or input data .The user interface on the user's device displays a user interface ("UI") that presents a stratified matching list of providers, products, services, and locations, along with financing and payment options, and, optionally, any incentives. System rules will apply restrictions).
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nidy et al. (US 8,924,238 B1) discloses a method and system for estimating cost of procedures at the time of scheduling in real-time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS K VAN DUZER whose telephone number is (571)270-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8-5 CT.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/A.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681