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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/26 has been entered. 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 a 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 the computer not being an additional elements. The use of a popup notification (such as is know for computers) is considered to be an additional element.
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 and the use of the popup notification.
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 and the use of a popup notification.
For claims 1, 11, 21, 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 and by the use of a popup notification on a computer. The claimed popup notification has been interpreted as reciting that a notification appears on a screen of a computing device, which is what a popup notification is. The notification is part of the abstract idea, where the popup aspect of the notification is reciting computer implementation for the notification itself and is nothing more than a notification that appears on a computer screen/GUI. The additional elements are taken as an instruction to use a computer to provide a notification by having the notification appear on a display of a computer. Th use of a computer and a popup notification does not amount to more than an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to provide the user with the notification. Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 11, 21, have 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 and by using a popup notification. 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. The additional elements of the computer and the popup notification does not amount to more than instructing one to practice the invention using computers, and does not amount to reciting significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, to which the applicant is referred. Therefore the claims are not eligible.
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 the claims are not eligible.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
NPL reference to PAN (from 03/26/2023, see IDS of 10/09/25) in view of Mehta (20130332208).
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 1, 11, 21, not disclosed by PAN is the use of a popup notification to notify the user. PAN teaches the use of email for the notification but does not teach a popup notification.
With respect to the use of a popup notification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a user can be notified by numerous methods such as email or a text or a popup notification or by a combination of email, text, or popup. Mehta teaches a system that notifies and user who is on a waitlist, and discloses that a notification can be provided via email, text message, or a popup notification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide PAN with the further ability to use a popup notification to notify the user, as is recognized by Mehta, so that the user can also or alternatively receive a notification via a popup notification. Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the use of an email or a text or using the claimed popup notification are all well-known ways to notify a user, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Using a popup notification for notifying a user in regards to a waitlist, as is found in PAN, yields predictable results of allowing a user to receive the notification via a popup notification. This is something that is very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 is not persuasive. The applicant has argued that the claim has been amended to recite that the notification is a popup notification and argues that the claims therefore do not recite an abstract idea. This is not persuasive. The popup notification has been treated as an additional element that is simply claiming that a computer is used to provide the notification for display to a user. That is just using a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea, as is set forth in the 35 USC 101 rejection of record. The argument that somehow claiming a popup notification does not mean that an abstract idea is recited at step 2A is not persuasive. An abstract idea is still being claimed in the claims. The amendment is just changing the claim scope to recite a popup notification as opposed to a text notification, where the notification is still part of the abstract idea, the fact it is a popup notification is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, and does not render the claims non-abstract. The argument is not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the previous 35 USC 102 rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that is addressing the amended claim scope and the claimed use of a popup notification. The claim amendment does not render the claims as patentable over the cited prior art because the use of a popup notification is well known in the art and would have been obvious to provide to PAN, as is set forth in the current 35 USC 103 rejection of record. The newly cited art to Mehta teaches a system that notifies and user who is on a waitlist, and discloses that a notification can be provided via email, text message, and/or via a popup notification. This renders the use of a popup notification as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant is referred to the rejection of record in this regard.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights