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 1, 11, and 21 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added. Therefore, claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection of claims 1, 11, and 21, the Applicant’s amendment has been considered and the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and further, that the claims recite additional features that incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the Examiner disagrees. The limitations of the claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite notifying a matching a patient when enrollment reopens for a charitable organization, which falls into the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Specifically, the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts since there is a payment for healthcare services, see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (II)(B). Further the claims recite metal processes since a judgment is made in the matching limitations, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite defining a disease diagnosis for a patient; matching the patient to one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, including monitoring a closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened via visits to a website of the closed charitable organization; providing a real-time notification to a user when the closed charitable organization reopens; and applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, including: proactively populating an application thus defining a prepopulated application; automatically applying the patient for funding when the closed charitable organization reopens.
The limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract idea, specifically commercial interactions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Because the instant invention is matching patients with donors for funding their treatment, the invention is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, specifically commercial interactions because it relates to the performance of payment for healthcare services. Alternatively, because defining a diagnosis, matching a patient with an organization for that diagnosis, and applying for that funding are all steps utilizing observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind, the claim also recites abstract mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device” (claim 1), “automated” (claims 1, 11, and 21), “a user device” (claims 1, 11, and 21), “a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations” (claim 11), “a computing system including a processor and memory configured to perform operations” (claim 21) are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are recited at a high-level of generality, and amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The computer is used as a tool to practice the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements are still mere instructions.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole describe how to apply the concept of matching patients to charitable organizations using “a computing device” in an “automated” fashion to “execute the operations”, which are generic computer components to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are further narrowing the abstract idea recited above and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Instead, these claims relate to automatically populating forms, defining entities in databases for matching, or otherwise processing forms electronically (Claims 3, 5-10, 13, 15-20, 23, and 25-30) or embellishments regarding what the charity is or what the funding covers (2, 4, 12, 14, 22, and 24). Performing the processing of mental steps or commercial interactions via a computer is merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further limitations defining a donor entity or what funding is covered are further limitations to the abstract commercial interaction. While claim 6, recites the application is “electronic”, this is no more than a general link to technology. Therefore the general link is also not enough to integrate the claims into a practical application.
In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1, 11, and 21. Therefore, Claims 1-30 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Artusy et al. (US 2023/0317239 A1, hereinafter “Artusy”) in view of Wood (US 2017/0154383).
Claim 1. Artusy teaches: A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
defining a disease diagnosis for a patient (see, e.g., ¶ 29 teaching a patient being diagnosed and ready for treatment and then securing funding if that diagnosis and other factors matches predetermined requirements; see also ¶ 69 teaching unique codes for the treatment the patient is seeking);
matching the patient to one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶ 29 teaching a patient being diagnosed and ready for treatment and then securing funding if that diagnosis and other factors matches predetermined requirements; see also ¶ 69 teaching unique codes for the treatment the patient is seeking as well as a donor database with the treatment codes that the donors are willing to fund to find a match; see further ¶s 62-63 and 70-74 teaching obtaining further data from the patient and then using an algorithm to perform the function of matching that patient with a willing funder);
providing a real-time notification on a user device (0075; automatically send messages to the patient); and
applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶ 80 teaching that the “donor side may also include mission driven charitable organizations” such as those “for a specific focus area (e.g., a type of medical condition),” noting as mentioned above that ¶s 62-63 and 70-74 teaching matching the patient’s necessary treatment with approved donors for that treatment).
Artusy does not disclose, however Wood discloses including monitoring a closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened via automated visits to a website of the closed charitable organization (0070, the computer program checks nightly to see if the application process has reopened). While Artusy discloses providing a real-time notification on a user device (0075), the notification is not when the closed charitable organization reopens; however Wood discloses this (0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of notifying a user when a closed organization reopens to facilitate the immediate need for the party to respond to get assistance to facilitate resumption of normalcy and getting properly scheduled in a timely manner (Wood, 0002).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of automatically monitoring an organization for reopening to provide notification (as disclosed by Wood) to the known method and system of linking charities with those needing help paying medical bills (as disclosed by Artusy), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring an organization for reopening to provide notification to the known method and system of linking charities with those needing help paying medical bills, because predictably automated checking can assist with the linking of charities and those needing charitable help). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 11 , these claims recite the same method steps as Claim 1 but recite different statutory categories. The rejection of Claim 1 above relying on the combination of Artusy and Wood to render the claims obvious is incorporated herein. Claim 11 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium that, when executed by the processor, performs the same steps as Claim 1. Similarly coextensive dependent claims will be treated together below for the sake of brevity.
Claims 2, 12, and 22. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one or more charitable organizations includes one or more of: a charity; a non-profit organization; and a philanthropic entity of a for-profit entity (see, e.g., ¶s 79-80 teaching the donors “may include various types of donors, including, but not limited to: hospital endowment centers, foundations (of all types, e.g., independent, corporate, family), public charities, charitable trusts, non-profit organizations, and individual donors” as well as “mission driven charitable organizations” with a “specific focus area”).
Claims 3, 13, and 23. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one or more charitable organizations are defined within a charitable organization database (see, e.g., ¶ 80 teaching that the “donor side may also include mission driven charitable organizations” such as those “for a specific focus area (e.g., a type of medical condition)” and at least ¶ 85 teaching that all the donors are placed into a curated donor database).
Claims 4, 14, and 24. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the funding includes one or more of: drug-based funding; treatment-based funding; and disease-based funding (see, e.g., at least ¶ 69 teaching that the donors have agreed to fund particular treatments).
Claims 5, 15, and 25. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein defining a disease diagnosis for a patient includes: processing an electronic medical record (EMR) to define the medical condition that includes the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶ 78 teaching that the back end server data repositories are compatible with electronic health record and electronic medical record software; see further ¶s 40 and 57 teaching the administrator using a particular code to categorize the patient that is used for matching with the donors; see additionally ¶ 69 teaching a treatment code for the patient that is used to match with donors that have agreed to fund that treatment).
Claims 6, 16, and 26. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations includes: automatically applying the patient for funding via an electronic application process (see, e.g., ¶s 75-76 teaching that the back-end server can perform the matching automatically, such that participation of the patient, provider, and donor can be automated).
Claims 7, 17, and 27. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: defining a charitable organization database that defines application criteria for a plurality of charitable organizations (see, e.g., ¶s 59, 62-66, 69, 85, 93, and 96 teaching a donor system and curated donor database that includes authenticated donors for particular treatments).
Claims 8, 18, and 28. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis includes: populating an application for the patient for the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis, thus defining one or more populated applications (see, e.g., ¶s 75-76 teaching that the back-end server can perform the matching automatically, such that participation of the patient, provider, and donor can be automated).
Claims 9, 19, and 29. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 8, 18, and 28. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 8 wherein applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis further includes: submitting the one or more populated applications to the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶s 62-63 teaching obtaining approval of a pledge of medical payment from a donor; see ¶s 85 and 93-95 teaching substantially the same; Examiner notes that these steps are performed after the system collects the necessary information to perform the match as noted in ¶s 75-76).
Claims 10, 20, 30. The combination of Artusy and Wood teaches the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Artusy further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: obtaining a funding approval (see, e.g., ¶s 62-63 teaching obtaining approval of a pledge of medical payment from a donor; see ¶s 85 and 93-95 teaching substantially the same).
Claim 21. Artusy teaches: A computing system including a processor and memory configured to perform operations comprising:
defining a disease diagnosis for a patient (see, e.g., ¶ 29 teaching a patient being diagnosed and ready for treatment and then securing funding if that diagnosis and other factors matches predetermined requirements; see also ¶ 69 teaching unique codes for the treatment the patient is seeking);
matching the patient to one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶ 29 teaching a patient being diagnosed and ready for treatment and then securing funding if that diagnosis and other factors matches predetermined requirements; see also ¶ 69 teaching unique codes for the treatment the patient is seeking as well as a donor database with the treatment codes that the donors are willing to fund to find a match; see further ¶s 62-63 and 70-74 teaching obtaining further data from the patient and then using an algorithm to perform the function of matching that patient with a willing funder);
providing a real-time notification on a user device (0075; automatically send messages to the patient); and
applying the patient for funding via the one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis (see, e.g., ¶ 80 teaching that the “donor side may also include mission driven charitable organizations” such as those “for a specific focus area (e.g., a type of medical condition),” noting as mentioned above that ¶s 62-63 and 70-74 teaching matching the patient’s necessary treatment with approved donors for that treatment): including proactively populating an application, thus defining a populated application; storing the prepopulated application; and automatically applying the patient for funding (see, e.g., ¶s 75-76 teaching that the back-end server can perform the matching automatically, such that participation of the patient, provider, and donor can be automated).
Artusy does not disclose, however Wood discloses including monitoring a closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened via automated visits to a website of the closed charitable organization (0070, the computer program checks nightly to see if the application process has reopened). While Artusy discloses providing a real-time notification on a user device (0075), the notification is not when the closed charitable organization reopens; and the application applies when the closed charitable organization reopens, however Wood discloses this (0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of notifying a user when a closed organization reopens to facilitate the immediate need for the party to respond to get assistance to facilitate resumption of normalcy and getting properly scheduled in a timely manner (Wood, 0002).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of automatically monitoring an organization for reopening to provide notification (as disclosed by Wood) to the known method and system of linking charities with those needing help paying medical bills (as disclosed by Artusy), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring an organization for reopening to provide notification to the known method and system of linking charities with those needing help paying medical bills, because predictably automated checking can assist with the linking of charities and those needing charitable help). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Distenfass et al (US2018/0039952) discloses an open enrollment period for a healthcare plan and notifying when enrollment opens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights