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
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 17th of July 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07/17/2025 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…obtaining…one or more data in view of one or more first forms associated with the one or more claims from one or more communication devices associated with one or more first users, wherein the one or more data associated with the one or more claims comprise at least one of: one or more personal information, one or more medical records, educational background, work experience, functional capabilities, physical capabilities form (PCF), training, wage data, last working day, tax records, Social Security Administration (SSA) award, benefit designation forms, death certificate, and medical authorizations, of the one or more first users; performing…one or more operations comprising at least one of: standardizing the one or more data, resolving inconsistencies on the one or more data, and organizing the one or more data for analyzing the one or more data in one or more structured and consistent formats; categorizing…the one or more first forms into documents comprising at least one of: one or more claim type and claim characteristics documents, one or more regulatory requirement documents, and one or more insurance carrier business rule documents; identifying…one or more data fields corresponding to each of the categorized one or more first forms; generating…one or more claim decision readiness scores based on at least one of: receipt, non-receipt, completeness, and incompleteness, of the categorized one or more first forms and associated one or more data fields, using a claim decision readiness scoring tool; executing…one or more automated workflow channels based on the generated one or more claim decision readiness scores with one or more pre-defined business rules; validating…data in the one or more data fields using one or more redundant and repetitive questions across the categorized one or more first forms; updating…at least one of: the one or more claim decision readiness scores and the one or more automated workflow channels, to adjudicate the one or more claims based on one or more information being at least one of: missed and newly added, to the one or more data fields within the categorized one or more first forms, using a ML model; and providing…the adjudicated one or more claims, as an output, to at least one of: the one or more first users and one or more second users, through one or more user interfaces associated with the one or more communication devices of at least one of: the one or more first users and the one or more second users.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions and a fundamental economic practice, namely processing insurance claims. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., hardware processors, communication devices, ML model, user interface). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., hardware processors, communication devices, ML model, user interface) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., hardware processors, communication devices, ML model, user interface) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., hardware processors, communication devices, ML model, user interface) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 12 and 20.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…combining…one or more weighted scores of document categories to generate the one or more claim decision readiness scores using the claim decision readiness scoring tool; and comparing…the generated one or more claim decision readiness scores against a predefined threshold values to determine a readiness status of the one or more claims.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 3, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…identifying…appropriate one or more automated workflow channels based on a matching point of the one or more claim decision readiness scores within the predefined threshold values; analyzing…one or more contextual factors comprising at least one of: claim type and claimant characteristics, specified in the one or more pre-defined business rules; selecting… the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels based on at least one of: the one or more claim decision readiness scores and the analyzed one or more contextual factors; and executing…the selected one or more automated workflow channels, wherein the one or more automated workflow channels comprise at least one of: follow-up for additional information, denial of the one or more claim due to failure to provide proof of loss, approval of the one or more claims, referral to a claim examiner for investigation, referral for possible approvals, referral for return-to-work discussions, referral for settlement discussions, and referral to fraud unit.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 4, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…obtaining…historical data associated with claim assignments comprising at least one of: initial claim assignments, re-assignments, and one or more reasons for the claim assignments; extracting…one or more features from data associated with the one or more claims, wherein the data associated with the one or more claims comprise at least one of: claim type, claimant information, document completeness, and receiving of additional information; training…the ML model on the historical data to learn one or more patterns between claim characteristics and the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels; assigning…the one or more claims to the one or more automated workflow channels, based on the one or more features; determining…whether at least one of: the
additional information is added and previously missing information is provided, to the one or more claims; updating…the one or more features to indicate the additional information, upon determining one or more changes to the one or more claims based on at least one of: addition of the additional information and provision of the previously missing information, to the one or more claims; predicting…whether at least one of: the one or more claim decision readiness scores and the one or more automated workflow channels, are updated to adjudicate the one or more claims, using the trained ML model; automatically re-assigning…the one or more claims to the updated one or more automated workflow channels upon predicting the updated one or more automated workflow channels, using the trained ML model; and re-training…the ML model with new data to optimize an accuracy in predicting the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 5, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…validating…the one or more data in view of the one or more first forms to determine accuracy and completeness of the one or more first forms associated with the one or more claims, by identifying the one or more first forms being matched with the one or more first users using an intelligent barcoding and scanning system; generating…one or more second forms with one or more fields indicating one or more missing information upon identifying the one or more fields comprising the one or more information being missed in the one or more first forms received from the one or more communication devices of the one or more first users, using a machine learning model; providing…one or more interpretations for the identified one or more fields comprising the one or more missing information, to the one or more communication devices associated with the one or more users, using the machine learning model; generating…one or more user profiles by obtaining one or more information associated with at least one of: functional abilities and limitation information, of the one or more first users through the one or more first forms from attending physician statement (APS) and the one or more medical records of the one or more first users, for identifying at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users; determining…whether the one or more first users are capable of performing one or more tasks in one or more occupation based on at least one of: the training, the work experience, the educational background, the functional abilities, and the limitation information, of the one or more first users by analyzing the one or more data within policy definitions and criteria, using an analytics engine; matching…at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users, with one or more occupations selected from one or more databases, based on at least one of: unified occupational library (UOL) and an advanced occupational selection technique, to provide one or more insights into at least one of: requirements, responsibilities, and demands associated with the one or more occupations within one or more labor markets, for the one or more first users; generating…one or more recommended actions comprising at least one of: return-to-work plans, vocational training recommendations, and preparation for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims, upon matching of at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users, with the one or more occupations; and providing…one or more real-time alerts and notifications associated with progresses of the one or more claims, to the one or more users through the one or more communication devices.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…one or more data retention policies indicating lifespan of types of the one or more data, wherein the one or more data retention policies are configured to be compliance with one or more legal and regulatory requirements for retaining the one or more data for required time duration and for deleting when the one or more data are no longer required; and categorizing and archiving…one or more documents associated with the one or more claims, for at least one of: auditing, compliance reporting, and reference processes.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 7, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…tracking…the one or more first forms with the one or more missing information, until one or more responses received from the one or more first users; generating…one or more inventories upon reviewing the one or more first forms and documents received form the one or more first users; and comparing…the one or more inventories with the one or more user profiles as defined in automated business rules (ABR) tool.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…determining…whether the one or more missing information is previously requested when the one or more information is missed from the one or more user profiles; and determining…whether a tracking request is due for the one or more missing information to initiate the tracking request when the one or more missing information is previously requested.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 9, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein matching of at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users, with the one or more occupations to provide the one or more insights associated with the one or more occupations for the one or more first users, is based on one or more factors comprising at least one of: physical abilities, cognitive skills, vocational interests, and
nature of the disability, of the one or more first users.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 10, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…selecting…the one or more occupations based on one or more locations of the one or more first users, wherein selecting the one or more occupations based on one or more locations of the one or more first users comprises: determining…one or more geographic vicinities of the one or more first users; selecting…the one or more occupations based on the determined one or more geographic vicinities of the one or more first users, with information associated with one or more local labor markets; and determining…whether the selected one or more occupations are optimized for the one or more locations of the one or more first users.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 11, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…identifying…the one or more first forms based on one or more information in the intelligent barcoding and scanning system; upon identifying the one or more first forms, determining…one or more placements of the one or more fields on the one or more first forms for matching the one or more first forms to the one or more first users; and identifying…the one or more fields on the one or more first forms being marked as important by one or more second users, for determining whether the one or more data are legible and comprising one or more values in each field, to adjudicate the one or more claims.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 13, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…verify at least one of: the categorized one or more first forms that are required and the categorized one or more first forms that are missed; for each obtained form, determine whether each of the one or more data fields comprises valid data; assign one or more scores based on one or more statuses of the one or more data fields within the one or more first forms, wherein the one or more data fields are assigned with an optimum score when a status of the one or more data fields is received and complete, wherein the one or more data fields are assigned with a medium score when a status of the one or more data fields is received and incomplete, and wherein the one or more data fields are assigned with a lower score when a status of the one or more data fields is not received; generate a score for each form based on aggregation of the one or more scores assigned for each field of the one or more fields; generate a score for each document category by combining scores computed for each form within the document category; apply one or more predetermined weights to the one or more first forms within the document category and the one or more fields within the one or more first forms, based on importance of the one or more first forms and the one or more fields in a claim decision process; combine one or more weighted scores of document categories to generate the one or more claim decision readiness scores using the claim decision readiness scoring tool; and compare the generated one or more claim decision readiness scores against a predefined threshold values to determine a readiness status of the one or more claims.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 14, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein in executing the one or more automated workflow channels based on the generated one or more claim decision readiness scores with the one or more pre-defined business rules, the workflow channel executing subsystem is configured to: identify appropriate one or more automated workflow channels based on a matching point of the one or more claim decision readiness scores within the predefined threshold values; analyze one or more contextual factors comprising at least one of: claim type and claimant characteristics, specified in the one or more pre-defined business rules; select the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels based on at least one of: the one or more claim decision readiness scores and the analyzed one or more contextual factors; and execute the selected one or more automated workflow channels, wherein the one or more automated workflow channels comprise at least one of: follow-up for additional information, denial of the one or more claim due to failure to provide proof of loss, approval of the one or more claims, referral to a claim examiner for investigation, referral for possible approvals, referral for return-to-work discussions, referral for settlement discussions, and referral to fraud unit.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 15, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…obtain historical data associated with claim assignments comprising at least one of: initial claim assignments, re-assignments, and one or more reasons for the claim assignments; extract one or more features from data associated with the one or more claims, wherein the data associated with the one or more claims comprise at least one of: claim type, claimant information, document completeness, and receiving of additional information; train the ML model on the historical data to learn one or more patterns between claim characteristics and the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels; assign the one or more claims to the one or more automated workflow channels, based on the one or more features; determine whether at least one of: the additional information is added and previously missing information is provided, to the one or more claims; update the one or more features to indicate the additional information, upon determining one or more changes to the one or more claims based on at least one of: addition of the additional information and provision of the previously missing information, to the one or more claims; predict whether at least one of: the one or more claim decision readiness scores and the one or more automated workflow channels, are updated to adjudicate the one or more claims, using the trained ML model; automatically re-assign the one or more claims to the updated one or more automated workflow channels upon predicting the updated one or more automated workflow channels, using the trained ML model; and re-train the ML model with new data to optimize an accuracy in predicting the appropriate one or more automated workflow channels.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 16, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…validate the one or more first forms to determine accuracy and completeness of the one or more data in view of the one or more first forms associated with the one or more claims, by identifying the one or more first forms being matched with the one or more first users using an intelligent barcoding and scanning system; generate one or more second forms with one or more fields indicating one or more missing information upon identifying the one or more fields comprising the one or more information being missed in the one or more first forms received from the one or more communication devices of the one or more first users, using a machine learning model; and provide one or more interpretations for the identified one or more fields comprising the one or more missing information, to the one or more communication devices associated with the one or more users, using the machine learning model; a user profile generation subsystem configured to generate one or more user profiles by obtaining one or more information associated with at least one of: functional abilities and limitation information, of the one or more first users through the one or more first forms from attending physician statement (APS) and the one or more medical records of the one or more first users, for identifying at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users; a claim assessment subsystem configured to determine whether the one or more first users are capable of performing one or more tasks in one or more occupation based on at least one of: the training, the work experience, the educational background, the functional abilities, and the limitation information, of the one or more first users by analyzing the one or more data within policy definitions and criteria using an analytics engine; an occupational matching subsystem configured to match at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users, with one or more occupations selected from one or more databases, based on at least one of: unified occupational library (UOL) and an advanced occupational selection technique, to provide one or more insights into at least one of: requirements, responsibilities, and demands associated with the one or more occupations within one or more labor markets, for the one or more first users; a claim recommendation subsystem configured to generate one or more recommended actions comprising at least one of: return-to-work plans, vocational training recommendations, and preparation for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims, upon matching of at least one of: the functional abilities and the limitation information, of the one or more first users, with the one or more occupations; and an alert providing subsystem configured to provide one or more real-time alerts and notifications associated with progresses of the one or more claims, to the one or more users through the one or more communication devices..” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 17, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…execute one or more data retention policies indicating lifespan of types of the one or more data, wherein the one or more data retention policies are configured to be compliance with one or more legal and regulatory requirements for retaining the one or more data for required time duration and for deleting when the one or more data are no longer required; and categorize and archive…one or more documents associated with the one or more claims, for at least one of: auditing, compliance reporting, and reference processes.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 18, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…track the one or more first forms with the one or more missing information, until one or more responses received from the one or more first users; generate one or more inventories upon reviewing the one or more first forms and documents received form the one or more first users; and compare the one or more inventories with the one or more user profiles as defined in automated business rules (ABR) tool.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 19, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…determine whether the one or more missing information is previously requested when the one or more information is missed from the one or more user profiles; and determine whether a tracking request is due for the one or more missing information to initiate the tracking request when the one or more missing information is previously requested.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights