Page 13 - Key Insights for Obtaining FinTech Patents Brochure

Sample Claim 2
2. A method comprising:
a. storing information about a patient’s condition in a plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices having a collection of medical records stored thereon;
b. providing access, by a content server, to users so that any one of the users can update the information about the patient’s condition in the collection of medical records, and;
c. storing the updated information about the patient’s condition in the collection of medical records in the plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices.
Other Examples
In addition to the above examples, USPTO examples 21 and 35 are also relevant to FinTech inventions, although they are analyzed under previous USPTO guidance.
Example 21 discusses a stock quote alert subscription service where subscribers receive customizable alerts (e.g., based on stocks of interest, price, format, etc.) to their mobile device from a remote data source. The alert also causes the subscriber’s computer to auto-launch a stock viewer application provided by the service to display the alert and to display a URL to allow the subscriber to access more detailed information. The method was intended to be an improvement over existing alert systems, which often failed to timely connect with the subscriber.
Example 21’s sample claims differ inasmuch as the first focuses on the process steps of providing a stock alert to a subscriber, while the second adds the steps of providing a viewer application to the subscriber and launching the application on the subscriber’s computer in response to the stock alert. Applying its previous guidance, the USPTO indicated that, while both examples included elements directed to abstract ideas (e.g., mental steps), the second example, when read as an ordered combination, amounts to significantly more than simply organizing and comparing data. It addresses an Internet-centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. Thus, the second sample claim would be eligible at Step 2B. The first sample claim would be ineligible because it recites only abstract ideas. Example 35 discusses an ATM fraud reduction method where an ATM card has a smart label such that, when the ATM card is near an ATM, the ATM can read the smart label and generate a random code. The code is then either displayed on the ATM for the user to enter in a provider’s smartphone application, which then communicates with the provider to confirm ATM access, or is transmitted to the customer’s smartphone which then displays an image that can then be read by the ATM to confirm access.
Example 35 includes three sample claims. Sample claim 1 recites only data obtaining and comparison steps. Applying its previous guidance, the USPTO indicated that sample claim 1 would be ineligible because it recites only elements that can be performed in a person’s mind. In contrast, sample claims 2 and 3 recite the specific steps of the two alternative methods discussed above, and
Step
Analysis
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A
- Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the claim limitations can be considered methods of organizing human interactions. Simply reciting the use of a generic storage device and content server is not enough to take the limitation out of the “Methods of Organizing Human Interactions” grouping.
Step 2A— Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Other than the abstract limitations, the claim recites only
two additional elements: the content server and storage devices used to perform the claim steps. But these components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the limitations. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea in Step 2A.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of updating medical records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds an inventive concept.
The claim is ineligible.
13 | www.sheppardmullin.com
Key Insights for Obtaining FinTech Patents