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 .
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method for providing automated payment processing and posting, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a system for providing automated payment processing and posting, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-10 (Group I) recite a computer implemented method for providing automated payment processing and posting, the method comprising:
receiving a payment from a third party;
receiving a payment statement from the third party;
automatically reassociating the payment and the payment statement based on patient data in the payment and the payment statement; and
automatically posting, by a robotic process automation platform (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the reassociated payment and payment statement to a patient ledger of a practice management software.
Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea and further contains:
a memory storing instructions (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it)….
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 11-20 is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1-10 (Group I), they are just directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein reassociating the payment and the payment statement further includes matching the payment with the payment statement, Claims 3 and 13 recite wherein receiving the payment further includes receiving an electronic funds transfer, Claims 4 and 14 recite wherein the robotic process automation platform includes a platform configured to execute repeatable data gathering actions, Claims 5 and 15 recite wherein the robotic process automation platform includes a platform configured to execute repeatable input actions, Claims 6 and 16 recite wherein the payment includes a batch payment corresponding to a plurality of claims, Claims 7 and 17 recite wherein the payment includes a single payment corresponding to a single claim, Claims 8 and 18 recite wherein the method further comprises automatically capturing the payment from the third party, Claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the practice management software (MPEP § 2106.05(g), apply it) includes a computerized records management platform, and Claims 10 and 20 recite wherein the patient ledger includes a record of financial transactions associated with a patient, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a robotic process automation platform, practice management software, memory and processor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0038-0040] and [0061-0069] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0038-0040] and [0061-0069] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing instructions data in a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than those recited at the apply it level. The dependent claims do not include an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dowling (U.S. Pat. No. 10,586,019 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dowling discloses a computer implemented method for providing automated payment processing and posting, the method comprising:
receiving a payment from a third party (Col. 8: lines 60- col. 9: line 10 state that payments are received from third parties, such as insurance companies.);
receiving a payment statement from the third party (Col 12: lines 25-45 state that the third party provides an Explanation of Benefits (EOB), construed as a payment statement from a third party.);
automatically reassociating the payment and the payment statement based on patient data in the payment and the payment statement (Col. 14: lines 48-67 state that the payer EOB and payment information is matched by the Reassociation and/or File Splitting module.);
automatically posting, by a robotic process automation platform, the reassociated payment and payment statement to a patient ledger of a practice management software (Col. 3: lines 22-32, col. 18: lines 34-62 and col. 19: lines 29-37 state that the patient account post information automatically regarding the patient’s transactions, which includes the EOBs and reassociated payment. Figure 1 shows the system implementing the steps, construed as platform.).
Regarding claim 2, Dowling discloses wherein reassociating the payment and the payment statement further includes matching the payment with the payment statement (Col. 14: lines 48-67 state that the payer EOB and payment information is matched by the Reassociation and/or File Splitting module.).
Regarding claim 3, Dowling discloses wherein receiving the payment further includes receiving an electronic funds transfer (Col. 14: lines 51-53 state that the payment is an electronic funds transfer.).
Regarding claim 4, Dowling discloses wherein the robotic process automation platform includes a platform configured to execute repeatable data gathering actions (Col. 14: lines 11-47 and col. 16: line 52- col. 17: line 2 state that system repeats tasks, such as the automated importing of data periodically, construed as repeatable data gathering actions.).
Regarding claim 5, Dowling discloses wherein the robotic process automation platform includes a platform configured to execute repeatable input actions (Col. 14: lines 11-47 and col. 16: line 52- col. 17: line 2 state that system automatically performs the reassociation process, construed as including repeatable input actions.).
Regarding claim 7, Dowling discloses wherein the payment includes a single payment corresponding to a single claim (Col. 9: lines 22-48 and col. 19: lines 29-37 state that the payment is a single payment regarding payment of a medical claim.).
Regarding claim 8, Dowling discloses wherein the method further comprises automatically capturing the payment from the third party (Col. 8: lines 10-20 and col. 11: lines 59-66 state that the system can capture transfers or payments.).
Regarding claim 9, Dowling discloses wherein the practice management software includes a computerized records management platform (Col. 12: lines 35-41 state that the Websphere Message Broker is used to receive and analyze incoming files to route them accordingly.).
Regarding claim 10, Dowling discloses wherein the patient ledger includes a record of financial transactions associated with a patient (Col. 1: lines 66 – col. 2: line 20 states that the system using a ledger and col. 18: lines 52-62 state that the data file may contain patient level data, construed as a record of financial transactions associated with a patient.).
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 11 further recites:
a memory storing instructions (Dowling col. 12: lines 5-24 state that system uses a memory that stores instructions to implement the steps.); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions… (Dowling col. 12: lines 5-24 state that server includes a transaction processor to execute the instructions.).
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 3, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 4, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 5, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 7, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 8, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 9, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling in view of Ivanoff (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0193872 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dowling does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the payment includes a batch payment corresponding to a plurality of claims.
Ivanoff teaches wherein the payment includes a batch payment corresponding to a plurality of claims (Paragraph [0189] discusses issues the payments in batches.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dowlingl to include batch processing, as taught by Ivanoff, in order to “facilitate payment transactions (Ivanoff, Paragraph [0189]).”
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights