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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 10/24/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-30 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1-30 recite a system, a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions, and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of identifying charities that can help pay outstanding medical bills for a given individual. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 11 and 21, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
identifying one or more outstanding medical bills associated with one or more patients;
identifying one or more charitable organizations available to at least partially satisfy the one or more outstanding medical bills; wherein the one or more charitable organizations includes a closed charitable organization;
monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened;
providing one or more of…. a text notification of the closed charitable organization has reopened
applying the one or more patients for funding via the one or more charitable organizations
The above limitations are reciting a process where a person (a patient with medical bills) applies for financial aid from a charitable organization to help them pay their medical bills. An organization is monitored to see if they have opened and if the organization is accepting applications for funding then a notification such as a written notification (text notification) can be provided to alert the patient of this fact. This is the act of soliciting funds from charities for a given cause which is the payment of medical bills for a person. This is a fundamental economic practice. As was stated in the specification in paragraph 003:
The history of charitable funds dedicated to covering medical expenses is rooted in a long tradition of community solidarity and philanthropy. In ancient times, religious institutions like temples, monasteries, and churches played a significant role in caring for the sick, funded through donations from the community. Many religious traditions emphasized the importance of providing for the ill, leading to the establishment of hospitals and care centers. During the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, secular charitable organizations began addressing public health needs, often supported by wealthy individuals and philanthropists. The 19th century saw the rise of organizations like the Red Cross, which provided systematic aid to those in need. By the 20th century, charities had evolved to fill gaps left by public healthcare systems, focusing on specific diseases, emergency medical care, or vulnerable populations. Today, charitable funds range from global organizations addressing widespread healthcare issues to smaller local initiatives targeting specific needs. Modern platforms like GoFundMe have also emerged, enabling individuals to raise money for medical expenses, expanding the concept of medical charity.
There is no dispute that obtaining financial assistance from charities for medical bills is something that is a human activity and is a financial practice. This defines a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claim 1, the computing device is only recited in the preamble and is not mentioned in the body of the claim. This results in there not being any additional elements claimed other than the steps that define the abstract idea itself. The limitation of the text notification is part of the abstract idea and the claim does not require the use of email or a popup notification due to the language of “one or more of” for the notification; therefore, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there are still no additional elements claimed.
For claim 11, the additional element is considered to be the computer program product that is on a non-transitory computer readable medium that includes instructions that can be executed by a processor. The limitation of the text notification is part of the abstract idea and the claim does not require the use of email or a popup notification due to the language of “one or more of” for the notification; therefore, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there are still no additional elements claimed.
For claim 21, the additional elements are the recitation to the processor and memory that are configured to perform the steps/functions that defines the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web). This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
For claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11, 21. The recitation to a charity or a non-profit, having a charity database, and funding drug or treatment based funding are all claim elements that serve to further define the abstract idea. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims.
For claims 5, 15, 25, the applying for funding using an application process is a further recitation to part of the abstract idea. The use of the “electronic” application process is taken as an instruction for one to use computers to perform the application process. This does not amount to integration at the 2nd prong or significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 6-10, 16-20, 26-30, the claims are reciting more about the abstract idea already noted for claims 1, 11, and 21. Obtaining funding for medical bills, applying the funds to medical bills, defining a charitable organization database that defines criteria, populating applications, and submitting the applications, are all elements that are further defining the abstract idea. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
NPL reference to PAN (dated 03/26/2023, see IDS of 10/09/25).
For claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, 16-18, 21-24, 26-28, NPL reference “PAN foundation” discloses that it is known in the art of medical charities to have a waitlist for patients seeking help with medical expenses. Disclosed by PAN is that there are numerous PAN disease funds that are available to patients if the patients satisfy eligibility requirements and if the fund is open and accepting new enrollees. The NPL references teaches on page 2 that the some of the charity funds may be closed and patients have to wait to apply for help. When the charity fund is closed it is disclosed that patients can be added to a wait list and will be notified with the charity is open again (a notification that the charitable organization has reopened). Disclosed is that patients on the wait list get priority to apply for a fund when it reopens. This also satisfies the claimed identifying of a closed charitable organization that could help with medical expenses as claimed, and that is for one or more outstanding medical bills. When the fund is open and accepting applications, a patient applies for funding as claimed. The PAN NPL reference discloses that when a charitable fund is open again, patients on the waitlist will receive an email informing them that they can apply to the charity. This satisfies the claimed monitoring of the close organization to determine if it has reopened, and satisfies the claimed providing of a notification that the charity organization has reopened. PAN is monitoring the wait lists and notifying patients whey they are open again and accepting new enrollments.
For claims 5, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 25, 29, 30, PAN inherently teaches submitting an application as claimed, and that the application is populated. PAN is monitoring a charity fund organization so a user can submit an application during the period of time when an organization is “open” (when they are accepting applications) as opposed to being closed (not accepting applications). The application is being filled out by a user and when they submit the application it has been “automatically” submitted as this term does not preclude human involvement in the process, see Collegenet, Inc. v Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005). Further, when a user submits an application, the application is populated with any necessary information prior to submitting it, thus defining and satisfying the claimed populated application.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection with respect to claim 11 has been overcome by the claim being amended to recite a computer program product that is residing on a “non-transitory computer readable medium”. This renders the claims as directed to a statutory category and passes step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection with respect to the claims being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims have been amended and recite additional features that are not directed to the abstract idea and the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. No actual reasoning or explanation is provided beyond that of a general allegation. The general allegation is not persuasive. The claims are not reciting additional elements that provide for integration into a practical application or that recite significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 that has been applied to the claims and that is in response to the amendment to the claims. This moots the arguments from the applicant because the reference being applied is not the same as argued due to the amendment to the claims.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626