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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim 6, 16, 26, 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.
For claims 6, 16, 26, the claim recites that the notification includes one or more of an email or a text. It is not clear if this in addition to the popup notification of the independent claims or if this is instead of the popup notification? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite. Does the scope of these claims require a popup notification and one of the email or text such that two are being provided? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
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 computer program product on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a method; therefore, the claims 1-30 pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of identifying closed charitable organizations that have reopened and that can help with medical bills related to a disease a patient has been diagnosed with. 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:
processing an electronic medical record to define a disease diagnosis associated with a patient matching the patient to one or more charitable organizations associated with the disease diagnosis
identifying a closed charitable organization within the one or more charitable one or more charitable organizations, wherein the closed charitable organization would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with the patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications;
monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and
providing notification if the closed charitable organization has reopened
The above limitations are reciting a process of monitoring a closed organization that can help with medical bills (due to a diagnosis of a disease) to determine if the organization has reopened and sending an notification when the organization has been determined to be re-opened. This is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. People can manually monitor an organization to see if they have reopened and are accepting applications, such as by sitting outside a store to see if they have reopened, or looking up 501(c) charities online to see if any suspended charities have regained their non-profit 501(c) status. The claimed steps are fully capable of being performed by people. A person such as a doctor can review an electronic medical record and make a diagnosis of a disease as claimed. This is what doctors do every day when doctors review medical records of patients to provide a diagnosis that can include diseases such as cancer. The claimed concept is a fundament economic practice of seeking assistance for medical related expenses by monitoring a closed charitable organization to see if they have reopened after a patient has been diagnosed with a disease. Absent the recitation to the use of a computer, the claimed steps that define the abstract idea are fully capable of being performed by people, including where the identifying and monitoring steps are performed mentally by a person simply monitoring an organization to see if they have reopened after a doctor has diagnosed a person with a disease using medical records. The claimed concept reflected by the above noted claim elements is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities for the above reasons.
For claim 1, the computing device is only recited in the preamble and is not mentioned in the body of the claim. The only additional element of the claim is the popup notification. The examiner interprets this as being a computer notification that “pops up” on the screen, which is an interpretation that is in accordance with the recognized computer meaning for this terminology.
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 recited popup notification.
For claim 21, the additional elements are the recitation to the processor and memory and the recited popup notification.
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 (non-transitory CRM) 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). 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. This is 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. 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 (non-transitory CRM) to perform steps that define the abstract idea and the use of the computer to provide a popup notification, as was addressed above for the 2nd prong. This does not amount to claiming significantly more. 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 because the issue at hand is that of computer implementation for the abstract idea with the use of a popup notification and the considerations at the 2nd prong and step 2B overlap substantially when the issue at hand is the use of a computer as a tool to execute an abstract idea. The claims are not found to be eligible for the above reasons.
For claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11, 21. The recitation to a charity or a non-profit, and having a charity database, are claim elements that serve to further define the abstract idea. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 14, 24, the polling of the closed organization to determine if they have reopened is a further recitation to the abstract idea of claim 1. This is just the act of asking the organization if they are reopened or not. This is part of the abstract idea. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 15, 25, the claimed requesting that the organization send a notification if they have reopened is reciting more about the abstract idea. A person can submit the claimed request via verbal communication. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 16, 26, the claimed use of a text notification, in addition to or instead of the popup notification (depending how the claims are interpreted, see 112b) is considered to be part of the abstract idea. A text notification can be text written on paper. This defines more about the abstract idea of claims 1, 11, 21. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7-9, 17-19, 27-29, submitting an application as claimed, is an element that is further defining the abstract idea. An application can be submitted in paper form as a person can do when they drop off an application at a given organization. Submitting an application is part of the abstract idea. As for the use of the term automatically, this does not preclude any human involvement in the submitting of the application. Once a person hands the application over to another person, it has been automatically submitted. No additional elements are claimed other than those already addressed for the independent claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 10, 20, 30, the proactively populating the application and storing the application for subsequent submission are elements that are part of the abstract idea. This is just the filling out of the application with data so that the applicant can be processed, and storing of the application. This is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be 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) in view of examiner official notice of the existence of and use of “electronic medica records” and further in view of Mehta (20130332208).
For claims 1-3, 6, 7, 11-13, 16, 17, 21-23, 26, 27, 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 they 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 disclosed that patients can be added to a wait list and will be notified with the charity is open again. Disclosed is that patients on the wait list get priority to apply for a fund when it reopens. This satisfies the claimed identifying of a close charitable organization that could help with medical expenses 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. The claimed matching of the patient to a charity associated with the disease is disclosed by PAN where it is disclosed that a user can create a fund finder account and the system can provide users with information to find a charity that matches their disease or condition.
Not expressly disclosed is that an electronic medica record is processed to define a disease diagnosis. The examiner notes that PAN teaches on page 2 that to join a wait list one must provide the diagnosis of their disease and in order to choose a disease fund. This requires that a diagnosis has to be made and that the patient knows what disease they have.
Not disclosed by PAN is the use of a popup notification to notify the user. PAN teaches the use of email for the notification.
The examiner takes official notice of the fact that electronic medica records are old and well known in the medical field and are processed (analyzed) to provide patients with a diagnosis, such as by a doctor reviewing medical test results or viewing medical image scans to provide a diagnosis for the patient. Well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known to use electronic medical records as opposed to paper records. Medical record systems that we electronic have been around for decades and is something one of ordinary skill in the art would very much appreciate and understand. The official notice has not been timely challenged in any manner and is therefore considered to be fact.
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 an electronic medical record to diagnose a patent with a disease. In the PAN reference, a user has to be diagnosed with a disease and must provide the diagnosis to be able to get on a wait list. That means a diagnosis has to occur beforehand and using electronic medical records is something that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 4, 5, 14, 15, 24, 25, not disclosed by PAN is the claimed periodic polling of the organization to determine if they have reopened, or the requesting that the organization provide a notification if they have reopened. Monitoring is the act of checking on the status or progress of something over a period of time. The claimed periodic polling is the act of checking on the status of the closed organization (the definition of polling is to check the status of something or inquire about something). While this is not expressly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to poll or request that the fund organization provide the status of the open enrollment period as part of monitoring (if they are open again), so that a notification can be sent to the patient in PAN informing them of the open enrollment period and the fact that they can now submit their application. In view of the desirability of knowing whether or not the organization is open or closed, it would have been obvious to poll (ask) or request a notification for an update as to the status of the various medica fund charities of PAN. This is common sense that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of PAN and the desirability to know when a medica fund has reopened.
For claims 8-10, 18-20, 28-30, PAN inherently teaches submitting an application as claimed, and that the application is proactively prepopulated. PAN is monitoring the charity fund organization so a user can submit an application during the period of time when an organization is “open” (accepting applications) as opposed to being closed (not accepting applications). The application is being filled out by a user (satisfies manually) 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 pre-populated application as claimed.
For claims 10, 20, 30, in addition to that stated above, not disclosed is the storing of the application. Storing of applications is well known in the art of applying for something, and 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 ability to store the application. This also seems to flow from using computers because the application has to be stored before it can submitted to the charity fund, where the transmission of the submission contains a stored application.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant has argued that the use of a popup notification renders the claims eligible. This is not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the 35 USC 101 rejection of record. The applicant argues that the examiner has tacitly admitted that a popup notification makes the claims eligible. No such conclusion can be made in view of the rejection of record, and in view of the fact that the claim did not require a popup notification as is newly claimed. The advisory action of 10/23/25 set forth the same finding, namely that the examiner did not imply in any manner that the use of just a popup notification (as is the breadth of claim 1) makes the claim eligible. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that is necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The use of a popup notification is something that is well known in the art and would have been obvious to provide to PAN. The fact that PAN uses an email to notify a user does not mean that the use of a popup window would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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. 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.
No other arguments have been presented for examiner consideration.
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