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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/358,140 filed on 10/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 12 and 13, the colon (:) at the end of the limitation “normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of second data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store”, should be a semicolon (;).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recites a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, 2019 PEG Step 1=yes) a machine, process, or manufacture that performs the steps of receiving a plurality of data transmissions…, determine…a quantity of days associated with the plurality of data transmissions, determine…the quantity of days exceeds a threshold. Each of these limitations, alone or in combination, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e., Mental process), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing device” or “computing devices”, nothing in any of the claim elements precludes the steps/instructions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing device” or “computing devices”, the steps in the context of each of these claims encompass a user manually and/or mentally gathering information and analyzing the information to make determination. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitations of generic computer components (e.g., “computer processor”, “computer programing code”), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract Idea Grouping, Yes, Mental Process). Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/ Abstract idea into a practical application? = No). In particular, the claims each recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform the receiving and determining steps. The computing device(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of receiving information, calculating a simple arithmetic operation, making a determination based on the calculated result) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, each of the claims is still directed to an abstract idea.
Each of the claims do not recite any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation of “generate a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days exceeds a threshold” (2019 PEG Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more? ) is evaluated to see if it individually or collectively with other claim elements amount to significantly more. At most, the “generate a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days exceeds a threshold” step is insignificant extra-solution activity in the data transmission application and healthcare field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the “generating a request step based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days exceeds a threshold” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, for at least these reasons, each of the independent claims is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because of the elements in those claims merely add extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, and 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,468,729 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same subject matter.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 of the instant application are claiming the same subject matter that are recited in claims 1-2, 5, and 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,468,729 B2 as follows:
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,468,729 B2
1. A system, comprising: a data store; and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the data store, the at least one computing device being configured to: receive a plurality of first data transmissions from one or more data sources; determine a first quantity of days associated with the plurality of first data transmissions; determine that the first quantity of days exceeds a first threshold; receive a plurality of second data transmission from the one or more data sources; determine a second quantity of days associated with the plurality of second data transmissions; determine that the second quantity of days exceeds a second threshold; and in response to determining that the first quantity of days exceeds the first threshold and the second quantity of days exceeds the second threshold, generate a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of first data transmissions based on one or more timestamps included in the plurality of first data transmissions.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the second quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of second data transmissions based on one or more timestamps included in the plurality of second data transmissions.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold each comprise an eligibility requirement associated with the request.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a request for reimbursement associated with the plurality of first data transmission and the plurality of second data transmissions.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the request based on the first quantity of days comprises a first code associated with reimbursement for the plurality of first data transmissions.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the request based on the second quantity of days comprises a second code associated with reimbursement for the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions.
8. A method, comprising: receiving, via one of one or more computing devices, a plurality of first data transmissions from one or more data sources; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a first quantity of days associated with the plurality of first data transmissions; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, that the first quantity of days exceeds a first threshold; receiving, via one of the one or more computing devices, a plurality of second data transmission from the one or more data sources; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a second quantity of days associated with the plurality of second data transmissions; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, that the second quantity of days exceeds a second threshold; and in response to determining that the first quantity of days exceeds the first threshold and the second quantity of days exceeds the second threshold, generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the first quantity of days and the second quantity of days comprise a total quantity of days for a predefined time period.
12. The method of claim 8, further comprising: sorting, via one of the one or more computing devices, the plurality of first data transmissions based on one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of first data transmissions; normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of first data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store: storing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of first data transmissions in the data store.
13. The method of claim 8, further comprising: sorting, via one of the one or more computing devices, the plurality of second data transmissions based on one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of second data transmissions; normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of second data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store: storing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of second data transmissions in the data store.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more timestamps comprises a first date and time that each of the plurality of second data transmissions is generated and a second date and time that each of the plurality of second data transmissions is transmitted by the one or more data sources.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to: receive a plurality of first data transmissions from one or more data sources; determine a first quantity of days associated with the plurality of first data transmissions; determine that the first quantity of days exceeds a first threshold; receive a plurality of second data transmission from the one or more data sources; determine a second quantity of days associated with the plurality of second data transmissions; determine that the second quantity of days exceeds a second threshold; and in response to determining that the first quantity of days exceeds the first threshold and the second quantity of days exceeds the second threshold, generate a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: store the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions in a data store.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: prior to storing the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions in a data store, compare each of the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions to a plurality of stored data transmissions in the data store.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to: associate an identifier with each of the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions.
8. A system, comprising: a data store; and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the data store, the at least one computing device being configured to: receive a plurality of data transmissions from one or more data sources, wherein each of the plurality of data transmissions comprises one or more timestamps; sort the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; normalize each of the plurality of data transmissions to a format acceptable to the data store: store each of the plurality of data transmissions in the data store; determine a first total quantity of days, wherein the first total quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; determine a second total quantity of days, wherein the second total quantity of days is a number of days since a prior reimbursement; determine that the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceed an eligibility threshold, wherein the eligibility threshold represents at least one eligibility requirement for reimbursement; and perform an action based on the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceeding the eligibility threshold.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to normalize each of the plurality of data transmissions by normalizing a format of the one or more timestamps.
10. The system of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of data transmission further comprises an identifier associated with the one or more data sources.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to normalize each of the plurality of data transmissions by normalizing a format of the identifier.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to group the plurality of data transmissions based on the identifier associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions.
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to render a user interface displaying whether the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceed the eligibility threshold.
1. A method, comprising: receiving, via one of one or more computing devices, a plurality of data transmissions from one or more data sources, wherein each of the plurality of data transmissions comprises on or more timestamps; sorting, via one of the one or more computing devices, the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store; storing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of data transmissions in the data store; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a first total quantity of days, wherein the first total quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a second total quantity of days, wherein the second total quantity of days is a number of days since a prior reimbursement; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, that the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceed an eligibility threshold, wherein the eligibility threshold represents at least one eligibility requirement for reimbursement; and performing, via one of the one or more computing devices, an action based on the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceeding the eligibility threshold.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the action comprising submitting a reimbursement request.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more timestamps comprises a first date and time that each of the plurality of data transmissions is generated and a second date and time that each of the plurality of data transmissions is transmitted by the one or more data sources.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to: receive a plurality of data transmissions from one or more data sources, wherein each of the plurality of data transmissions comprises one or more timestamps; sort the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; normalize each of the plurality of data transmissions to a format acceptable to the data store; store each of the plurality of data transmissions in the data store; determine a first total quantity of days, wherein the first total quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of data transmissions based on the one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions; determine a second total quantity of days, wherein the second total quantity of days is a number of days since a prior reimbursement; determine that the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceed an eligibility threshold, wherein the eligibility threshold represents at least one eligibility requirement for reimbursement; and perform an action based on the first total quantity of days and the second total quantity of days exceeding the eligibility threshold.
15. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the program further causes the at least one computing device to calculate a health metric based on the plurality of data transmissions.
As to claims 1-8 and 11-18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have derived their claim limitations from claims 1-2, 5, and 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,468,729 B2 since they are claiming the same subject matter and are substantially similar in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fellerman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0205090 A1, hereinafter “Fellerman”).
Regarding claim 1, Fellerman teaches a system, comprising:
a data store (Fellerman ¶0036, i.e., a data store to receive check images); and
at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the data store (Fellerman ¶0037, i.e., remote terminal includes a check scanner), the at least one computing device being configured to:
receive a plurality of first data transmissions from one or more data sources (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., “transfer of checks at staggered times that correspond to when each of the checks 24 are presented for settlement from the purchaser's bank account”);
determine a first quantity of days associated with the plurality of first data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., “the checks 24 are presented in 30-day intervals, that is, at 0 days, 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days after the initial transaction”);
determine that the first quantity of days exceeds a first threshold (Fellerman ¶0058, e.g., exceed the 30-day interval);
receive a plurality of second data transmission from the one or more data sources (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., “transfer of checks at staggered times that correspond to when each of the checks 24 are presented for settlement from the purchaser's bank account”);
determine a second quantity of days associated with the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., “the checks 24 are presented in 30-day intervals, that is, at 0 days, 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days after the initial transaction”);
determine that the second quantity of days exceeds a second threshold (Fellerman ¶0058, e.g., exceed the 60-day interval); and
in response to determining that the first quantity of days exceeds the first threshold and the second quantity of days exceeds the second threshold, generate a request based on at least the first quantity of days or the second quantity of days (Fellerman ¶¶0060-0061, i.e., a request for the transfer of appropriate amount of funds).
As to claim 2, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of first data transmissions based on one or more timestamps included in the plurality of first data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, e.g., 30 days from when each of the checks are presented for settlement from the purchaser’s bank account).
As to claim 3, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second quantity of days is a sum of days of the plurality of second data transmissions based on one or more timestamps included in the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, e.g., 60 days from when each of the checks are presented for settlement from the purchaser’s bank account).
As to claim 4, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold each comprise an eligibility requirement associated with the request (Fellerman ¶0060, i.e., eligibility for fund deduction).
As to claim 5, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a request for reimbursement associated with the plurality of first data transmission and the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0061, i.e., a reimbursement request to the merchant).
As to claim 6, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the request based on the first quantity of days comprises a first code associated with reimbursement for the plurality of first data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0060, e.g., a deduction request based on the 30 days interval to reimburse the merchant).
As to claim 7, Fellerman also teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the request based on the second quantity of days comprises a second code associated with reimbursement for the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0060, e.g., deduction request based on the 60 days interval to reimburse the merchant).
Claim 8 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 9, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of first data transmissions is received during a first time period and the plurality of second data transmissions is received during a second time period (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., “the multiple transfer of checks at staggered times that correspond to when each of the checks 24 are presented for settlement from the purchaser's bank account”).
As to claim 10, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first time period excludes the second time period (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., the first 30-day interval).
As to claim 11, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first quantity of days and the second quantity of days comprise a total quantity of days for a predefined time period (Fellerman ¶0058, i.e., the second 30-day interval comprises the sum of first and second quantity of days (60 days)).
As to claim 12, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
sorting, via one of the one or more computing devices, the plurality of first data transmissions based on one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of first data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, the first 30-day interval of check images);
normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of first data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store (Fellerman ¶¶0051-0052):
storing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of first data transmissions in the data store (Fellerman ¶0061).
As to claim 13, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
sorting, via one of the one or more computing devices, the plurality of second data transmissions based on one or more timestamps associated with each of the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0058, the second 30-day interval of check images);
normalizing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of second data transmissions to a format acceptable to a data store (Fellerman ¶0051):
storing, via one of the one or more computing devices, each of the plurality of second data transmissions in the data store (Fellerman ¶0061).
As to claim 14, Fellerman also teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more timestamps comprises a first date and time that each of the plurality of second data transmissions is generated and a second date and time that each of the plurality of second data transmissions is transmitted by the one or more data sources (Fellerman 0058, i.e., date and time when the checks are presented for settlement, and when the checks are presented in 30-day intervals).
Claim 15 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 16, Fellerman also teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to:
store the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions in a data store (Fellerman ¶0061).
As to claim 17, Fellerman also teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to:
prior to storing the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions in a data store, compare each of the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions to a plurality of stored data transmissions in the data store (Fellerman ¶0061, i.e., comparing checks to determine the check amount proportions for deduction).
As to claim 18, Fellerman also teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to:
associate an identifier with each of the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶0042).
As to claim 19, Fellerman also teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions are received from one data source of the one or more data sources associated with a user (Fellerman ¶0007, i.e., checks deposited by the payee).
As to claim 20, Fellerman also teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, further configured to cause the at least one computing device to:
increment a counter associated with the request based on the plurality of first data transmissions and the plurality of second data transmissions (Fellerman ¶¶0060-0061, i.e., the increment of the prescheduled intervals (e.g. 30 days, 60 days)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
