DETAILED ACTION
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 on November 18, 2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is prepared in response to claim amendments and Remarks submitted by Applicant on November 18, 2025 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 19/080,238 filed on March 14, 2025. This is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 18/943,127 filed on November 11, 2024, which is a division of U.S. Application No. 17/739,663, filed on May 9, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 12,175,539, which is a continuation in part of U.S. Application No. 16/701,960, filed on December 3, 2019, now abandoned, which has priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/744,641, filed on December 3, 2018. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted by Applicant on November 18, 2025 have been fully considered, however, are not persuasive.
With respect to the Section 101 rejection Applicant asserts that the amended independent claims (1 and 10) are not directed to an abstract idea in that they define more than a commercial interaction involving business relations in that they recite a practical application of any potential abstract idea. (Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. (See Section 101 rejection below). Applicant further asserts that even if Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the additional elements set forth a practical application of the abstract idea within a network having a plurality of plans involving medical information
in that they now recite limitations directed to authenticating the buyer computing device before any data is provided by the core over the network and the data includes an artificial intelligence model. Applicant asserts that these features prevent multiple devices from accessing the model or data using one account and improve security and privacy of users and customers seeking plans pertaining to medical information. (Remarks, pp. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See Section 101 Rejection below). The Section 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-16 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, each of the claims are directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites: generating a personal representation of user data, wherein the user data includes parameters that apply to a person object for the personal representation; receiving from a buyer medication information for a customer related to the person object; generating credentials for the customer unique to the buyer and authenticating the customer using the credentials; providing a model based on the credentials, wherein the model includes a conditions data structure and a medications data structure; generating, at least one input vector, based on the received medication information; executing the model on the at least one input vector to generate a list of medical conditions that the customer may be experiencing; comparing the list of medical conditions to plan exclusion criteria and the provided parameters to identify excluded plans; removing the excluded plans from a list of available plans; and transmitting to the buyer the list of available plans that fit the provided parameters. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of identifying and recommending, based on a customer’s medical conditions and medication information, a plan or plans from available plans which amounts to commercial interactions falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated in MPEP 2016.04(a). Claim 10 recites the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 1 recites a processor, a computing platform, a digital representation of user data, a buyer computing device, an input device, a front end accessor, a communication server, a core and an artificial intelligence model. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology because they only manipulate data. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology because they only manipulate data. Based on the aforementioned, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 2 and 11 (searching a medications data structure for each of medication names in the received medication information to determine whether a medication name appears in the medications data structure; in response to determining that the medication name does appear in the medications data structure, determining if the medication name is not one of a formal medication name or a generic medication name; in response to determining that the medication name is not one of a formal medication name or a generic medication name, identifying the formal medication name that most closely matches the medication name; adding the medication name and the matched formal medication name to a corrections list; and transmitting the corrections list to the buyer computing device for display to the user; receiving, from the buyer computing device, user input accepting or rejecting the medications in the corrections list; and for each accepted correction in the corrections list, replacing the medication name in the received medical information with the accepted formal medication name), Claim 3 (the medication information used to generate the input vector includes the corrected medication names in place of the originally received medication names that were corrected via the corrections list), Claims 4 and 12 (in response to determining that the medication name does not appear in the medications data structure, accessing an internet search application programming interface (API) to search medication manufacturer websites for the medication name; and in response to determining that the medication name was found on a medication manufacturer website, adding the medication name and corresponding dosage and prescribing information from the website to the medications data structure), Claim 5 (the medications data structure is part of the artificial intelligence model), Claims 6 and 13 (the medication information includes refill information), Claims 7 and 14 (the refill information includes a first fill date or a last refill date), Claim 8 (generating, by the processor, at least one combination input vector, including combinations of medications provided in the received medication information; and executing, by the processor, the artificial intelligence model on the combined input vector to generate a list of medical conditions the customer may be experiencing), Claim 9 (generating, by the processor, at least one class input vector, including a class of medications provided in the received medication information along with a combined dosage of all medications of that class listed in the received medication information; executing, by the processor, the artificial intelligence model on the class input vector to generate a list of medical conditions the customer may be experiencing), and Claims 15 and 16 (in response to determining that the medication name does not appear in the medications database, accessing an internet search application programming interface (API) to search for the medication name; and in response to determining that the medication name was found via the API, extracting the medication name or metadata to at least one database or model or expert system) contain additional elements (which are underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea.
As such, Claims 1-16 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694