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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, 21-24 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 09/08/2026, Amending Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-19. Cancelled claims 3, 7, 12, and 20. Adding new claims 21-24.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the new claims.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims,
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 12- of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
Integrates Any Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Representative claim 1 as a whole integrates that exception into a practical application because the additional elements provide (a) a specific improvement to the functioning of the forecasting model and the computer technology implementing the forecasting model, and (b) a conditional, resource-conserving architecture that triggers computationally expensive retraining only when needed, both of which are expressly recognized under MPEP § 2106.0S(a) and the 2019 PEG as indicative of integration into a practical application. Three of the Office's own published eligibility examples confirm this conclusion.
Improvement to the Underlying Technology - Example 39 (Training a Neural Network).
….
Network Traffic Data).
In Example 40, a network appliance ordinarily collects only limited traffic-condition data (e.g., delay, packet loss, jitter), but begins collecting additional, more detailed NetFlow protocol data only when the ordinarily-collected data indicates an abnormal condition (i.e., a comparison of collected data to a predefined threshold). The Office found the claim eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two because, even though the individual collecting and comparing steps might be viewed as mere data-gathering or a mental process in isolation, the claim as a whole is directed to "a particular improvement in collecting traffic data," specifically because "the method limits collection of additional NetFlow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance." Example 40, Claim 1 Analysis (Step 2A, Prong Two).
…
Automatic Remedial Action Taken in Response to a Detected Technical Condition -
Example 47 (Anomaly Detection), Claim 3.
In Example 47, Claim 3 - directed to a method of using a trained artificial neural network ("ANN") to detect malicious network packets and then, upon detecting an anomaly associated with a malicious packet, automatically dropping the packet and blocking future traffic from its source address "in real time," was found eligible because the claim as a whole integrates the recited exception into a practical application by using the output of the anomaly-detection step to automatically trigger a concrete remedial action that improves network security, without the need for alerting a network administrator. See Example 47, Claim 3 Analysis; Background (explaining the invention "realizes an improvement in network security by avoiding the delay involved in waiting on a network administrator to react").
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, With regard to applicant remark that the instant claims are similar to Example 39, Example 39 claims recites a combination of additional elements including create a modified set of digital facial images; creating a first training set comprising the collected set of digital facial images, the modified set of digital facial images, and a set of digital non-facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first training set and digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images after the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set.". second, Examiner note that the instant claims are not similar to Example 40 which applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image to create a modified set of digital facial images. Third, example 47 steps (d)-(f) of claim 3 of Example 47, that recite "(d) detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets," "(e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets," and "(f) blocking future traffic from the source address." Wherein the instant independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recites the abstract idea relates to methods and systems for forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management" (Spec. [6]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the claim limitations demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10 and 18 are directed to the abstract idea of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited provide a business solution of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the abstract idea of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards Mathematical Concepts applying a sliding window of order to a plurality time series and determining interquartile range (IQR) scores for the datasets. Which is “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculation,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation A non-transitory, system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The additional elements of a “a machine learning model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “a machine learning model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Applicant argues (Pages 16-17 of the remarks): with regard to 2B
Step 2B: Recites Significantly More Than Any Judicial Exception A. The Office Has Already Found the Claimed Combination Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art of Record.
Notably, in the "Allowable Subject Matter" section of the very same Office Action, the Examiner found that no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or§ 103 is warranted for any of claims= 1-20, expressly stating that "[n]one of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach[es] ... the claimed invention," including the sliding window/IQR-based outlier-identification and replacement limitations, and concluding that "the prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not [sic] renders obvious the Applicant's claimed invention." Office Action, pp 17-18
Diehr, claim 1 uses statistically-derived quantities (IQR scores, threshold ranges, a performance metric) not as an end in themselves, but as part of a specific process, i.e., training, monitoring, and conditionally retraining a forecasting model, that improves upon prior, static-trained forecasting approaches.
For all the foregoing reasons, representative claim 1 is patent-eligible. The remaining claims, directly or indirectly, include similar recitation(s) and are patentable for at least the same reasons.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, examiner point out with regard to applicant argument above that the “Examiner found that no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or§ 103 is warranted for any of claims 1-20, expressly stating that "[n]one of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach[es] ... the claimed invention”. This argument is not persuasive
because the test under Alice is not a matter of evidence but rather a test of law, the
nonobviousness or novelty of those limitations would not provide an indication that
those limitations are 'something more'. In other words, nonobviousness or novelty is
not an indicia of eligibility - it is not an indicia that limitations provide "something more.
Second, The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 10, and 18 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 10, and 18 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include A non-transitory, system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model.
Examiner asserts that A non-transitory, system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 7, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 21-24 are directed toward a non-transitory (process), Claims 10-11, 13-17 are directed to a method (process) and Claims 18-19 are directed toward a system (system), and . Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 10, and 18 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1. Thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. One or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
accessing a dataset of healthcare data for one or more key performance indicators (KPI), the dataset of healthcare data comprising a plurality of time series data points associated with a first KPI;
applying a sliding window of order “N” to the plurality of time series data points to generate a plurality of datasets;
identifying outliers in the plurality of datasets at least by:
determining a first set of “N” datasets of the plurality of datasets that include a first data point,
determining a first set interquartile range (IQR) scores for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, using the first set IQR scores for the respective datasets of first set of “N” datasets,
determining first threshold ranges for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, responsive to the first data point being outside the first threshold ranges for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, selecting the first data point as a first outlier of the outliers,
determining a second set of "N" datasets of the plurality of datasets that include a second data point, determining a second set of IQR scores for the respective datasets of the second set of "N" datasets,
using the second set of IQR scores for the respective datasets of the second set of "N" datasets, determining second threshold ranges for the datasets of the second set of "N" datasets, and
responsive to the second data point being within the second threshold ranges for at least one dataset of the second set of "N" datasets, excluding the second data point from selection as a second outlier;
replacing the outliers in the plurality of time series data points with replacement data points to generate a first aggregated dataset for the first KPI, the first aggregated dataset comprising the replacement data points in place of the outliers;
training at least one machine learning model in first stage, using, as first-stage training input, the first aggregated dataset thereby reducing overfitting of the at least one machine learning model to the outliers and improving accuracy of forecasts generated by the at least one machine learning model;
generating, using the at least one machine learning model as trained in the first stage, forecasted values for the first KPI corresponding to a second plurality of time series data points subsequently observed for the first KPI;
determining that a performance metric of the at least one machine learning model, generated by comparing the forecasted values to observed values of the first KPI in the second plurality of time series data points, falls below a performance threshold, the performance metric falling below the performance threshold indicating performance degradation of the at least one machine learning model;
generating a second aggregated dataset by incorporating the second plurality of time series data points with the first aggregated dataset; and
retraining the at least one machine learning model, using, as second-stage training input, the second aggregated dataset, in response to the performance metric falling below the performance threshold.
The Applicant's Specification titled "Advanced Forecasting Tool for Key Performance Indicators in Revenue Cycle Management" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management" (Spec. [6]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the abstract idea of forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards Mathematical Concepts applying a sliding window of order to a plurality time series and determining interquartile range (IQR) scores for the datasets. Which is “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculation,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claims 11 and 19) replacing the outliers in the plurality of time series data points with replacement data points comprises: identifying a first set of neighboring data points of the first outlier, wherein the first set of neighboring data points comprises (a) a first set of data points on a first side of the first outlier and (b) a second set of data points on a second side of the first outlier, determining a first median for the first set of neighboring data points of the first outlier, and replacing the first outlier with the first median in the first aggregated dataset.
claim 3 (Similarly Claims 12, and 20) Cancelled
claim 4 (Similarly Claim 13) wherein determining the first threshold ranges for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets comprises: arranging data points of a first dataset of the first set of “N” datasets in ascending order to generate a first ordered dataset; determining a Q1 value for the first ordered dataset, wherein the Q1 value is a 25th percentile of the first ordered dataset; determining a Q3 value of the first ordered dataset, wherein Q3 value is a 75th percentile of the first ordered dataset; subtracting the Q3 value from the Q1 value to determine an IQR score; determining a lower first threshold of the threshold ranges by subtracting, 1.5 times the IQR score from the Q1 value; and determining an upper threshold of the first threshold ranges by adding 1.5 times the IQR score to the Q3 value.
claim 5 (Similarly Claim 14) wherein outliers are excluded from the first set of neighboring data points.
claim 6 (Similarly Claim 15) wherein the operations further comprise: accessing a features dictionary, the features dictionary comprising at least one of:
i. one or more additional KPIs, or
ii. one or more engineered features; and
associating the features dictionary with the first aggregated dataset.
claim 7 Cancelled
claim 8 (Similarly Claim 16) wherein training the at least one machine learning model comprises: training an ensemble of forecasting models, wherein the ensemble of forecasting models comprises:
i. a first plurality of forecasting models trained using the aggregated dataset for forecasting a first KPI value for entities of a first size;
ii. a second plurality of forecasting models trained using the aggregated dataset for forecasting a second KPI value for entities of a second size; and
iii. a third plurality of forecasting models trained using the aggregated dataset for forecasting a third KPI value for entities of a third size,
wherein the first plurality of forecasting models, the second plurality of forecasting models, and the third plurality of forecasting models are different from one another and the first size, the second size, and the third size are different from one another.
claim 9 (Similarly Claim 17) wherein the first KPI comprises one of revenue, cash, or footfall.
claim 21 wherein the operations further comprise:
applying the retrained at least one machine learning model to generate a forecast of the first KPI; and
automatically performing an action based on the forecast of the first KPI, the action comprising at least one of:(a) modifying a graphical user interface used for patient registration, (b) configuring coding software to reduce a predicted claim denial, (c) scheduling an automated notification, or (d) triggering an automated eligibility verification or pre-authorization workflow.
claim 22 wherein the operations further comprise:
subsequent to training the at least one machine learning model, receiving an inference dataset comprising additional time series data points associated with the first KPI;
preprocessing the inference dataset using preprocessing operations corresponding to preprocessing operations applied to the first aggregated dataset used to train the at least one machine learning model, thereby generating a preprocessed inference dataset having a data format consistent with a data format used to train the at least one machine learning model; and
applying the trained machine learning model to the preprocessed inference dataset to generate a forecast of the first KPI.
claim 23 wherein training the at least one machine learning model comprises: training an ensemble of forecasting models, wherein different forecasting models of the ensemble of forecasting models address different external factors affecting the first KPI, wherein the operations further comprise assigning different weights to the forecasting models of the ensemble of forecasting models based on an importance of the different external factors to the first KPI.
claim 24 wherein the retraining is performed automatically and without manual user intervention, and wherein the at least one machine learning model is not retrained absent the performance metric falling below the performance threshold.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. One or more non-transitory, processor, and machine learning model
Claim 10. Machine learning model
Claim 18. A system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 10, and 18 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A non-transitory, system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Paragraph [figure 7] of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “a machine learning model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “a machine learning model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management by identifying and replacing outliers data point and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention directed to forecast Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13-17, 19, and 21-24 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10, and 18, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 18, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 10, and 18. A non-transitory, system, one device, a hardware processor, and a machine learning model. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to forecasting Key Performance Indicators in revenue cycle management.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Gupta S, Sedamkar RR. Machine learning for healthcare: Introduction. InMachine learning with health care perspective: Machine learning and healthcare 2020 Mar 10 (pp. 1-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing, Kouvaras WO 2022/234112& Kouvaras et al. US 2023/0386655: cloud-based, scalable, advanced analytics platform for analyzing complex medical risk data and providing dedicated electronic trigger signals for triggering risk-related activities in the context of medical risk-transfer, and method thereof, and Chaudhuri et al. US 2020/0178903: Patient monitoring system and method having severity prediction and visualization for a medical condition.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, applying a sliding window of order “N” to the plurality of time series data points to generate a plurality of datasets; identifying outliers in the plurality of datasets at least by: determining a first set of “N” datasets of the plurality of datasets that include a first data point, determining a first set of interquartile range (IQR) scores for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, using the first set of IQR scores for the respective datasets of first set of “N” datasets, determining first threshold ranges for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, responsive to the first data point being outside the first threshold ranges for the datasets of the first set of “N” datasets, selecting the first data point as a first outlier of the outliers; …. replacing the outliers in the plurality of time series data points with replacement data points to generate a first aggregated dataset for the first KPI,”. The reason for not applying a rejection under 35 USC 102/103 of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhattarai, Gandhi. "Understanding the outliers in healthcare expenditure data." (2013).
Gupta S, Sedamkar RR. Machine learning for healthcare: Introduction. InMachine learning with health care perspective: Machine learning and healthcare 2020 Mar 10 (pp. 1-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Kouvaras et al. US 2023/0386655: CLOUD-BASED, SCALABLE, ADVANCED ANALYTICS PLATFORM FOR ANALYZING COMPLEX MEDICAL RISK DATA AND PROVIDING DEDICATED ELECTRONIC TRIGGER SIGNALS FOR TRIGGERING RISK-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF MEDICAL RISK-TRANSFER, AND METHOD THEREOF
Chaudhuri et al. US 2020/0178903: Patient monitoring system and method having severity prediction and visualization for a medical condition.
Freese et al. US 2017/0017760: Healthcare claims fraud, waste and abuse detection system using non-parametric statistics and probability based scores.
Biem US 2014/0006330: Detecting anomalies in real-time in multiple time series data with automated thresholding.
Myers et al. US 2025/0390477: Detecting data anomalies using artificial intelligence.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
