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
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 13 July 2026, the following occurred: No claims were amended or cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/004,885 dated 03 April 2020.
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 1-5 and 7-20 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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a system and computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for pharmacy remote verification which is within a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A1 – abstract idea
The limitations of Claim 1: determine a number of operators operating at the local pharmacy, set a threshold based on the number of operators that are operating at the local pharmacy, the threshold being proportional to the number of operators that are operating at the local pharmacy such that the threshold increases by a value between 2 and 20 for each operator that is operating at the local pharmacy, receive the prescription fill information for storage, activate a remote verification mode, and transmit a set of the prescription fill information for remote verification contingent upon (i) determining a number of prescriptions needing verification within the set of the prescription fill information exceeds the threshold, and (ii) determining the set of the prescription fill information includes images of a prescription preparation process; store the set of the prescription fill information; provide access for verification of the set of the prescription fill information and: arrange prescriptions of the set of the prescription fill information based on an urgency of the prescriptions such that a most urgent prescription is selected for review, after receiving a request to review a prescription preparation, cause the most urgent, un-reviewed prescription including the corresponding prescription fill information to be displayed receive a verified message or an unverified message, when the verified message is received, store a verified indication to the prescription fill information of the verified prescription and transmit a verified message to cause indication that the respective prescription is verified and available to convey to an associated patient, and when the unverified message is received, store an unverified indication to the prescription fill information of the unverified prescription and transmit an unverified message to cause and indication that at least one reason why the prescription cannot be verified, preventing the respective prescription from being made available to the associated patient, and enabling the at least one reason to be corrected
and the limitations of Claim 13: receive a set of prescription fill information for remote verification for a plurality of prescriptions, the set of the prescription fill information being received after the local pharmacy processor determined a number of prescriptions needing verification within the set of the prescription fill information exceeded a threshold, the threshold being proportional to the number of operators operating at the local pharmacy such that the threshold increases by a value between 2 and 20 for each operator that is operating at the local pharmacy; create an ordered list of prescriptions of the set of the prescription fill information based on an urgency of the prescriptions such that a most urgent prescription is ordered first for review; receive a request message to review a prescription; after receiving the request message, cause the first ordered prescription including the related prescription fill information to be displayed; receive a verified message or an unverified message; when the verified message is received, store a verified indication to the prescription fill information of the verified prescription and transmit a verified message causing indication that the respective prescription is verified and available to convey to an associated patient; and when the unverified message is received, store an unverified indication to the prescription fill information of the unverified prescription and transmit a notification message causing indication of at least one reason why the respective prescription cannot be verified, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor or a CRM (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the local pharmacy processor having a local pharmacy database and a local pharmacy application and remote verification server having a remote pharmacy database (Claim 1) or the pharmacy remote verification apparatus storing non-transitory computer-readable instructions including a local pharmacy application (Claim 13), this claim encompasses steps a person or persons would take to verify a prescription in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2 – practical application analysis of additional elements
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of the local pharmacy processor having a local pharmacy database and a local pharmacy application and remote verification server having a remote pharmacy database (Claim 1) or the pharmacy remote verification apparatus storing non-transitory computer-readable instructions and a local pharmacy processor and a local pharmacy application (Claim 13) that implements the identified abstract idea. The local pharmacy processor, remote verification server, and remote verification apparatus are either not described by the applicant or are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions; see Spec. Para. 0054 describing the local processor as a generic computer) 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) a remote verifier device (computer, Spec. Para. 0009), (2) a first and second network connection, (3) a plurality of local pharmacy processors, and (4) illuminating an indicator light of a cabinet compartment. Regarding (1), (2), and (2), the remote verifier device, network connections, and plurality of local pharmacy processors, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application.
Regarding (4), the illumination of an indicator light of a cabinet compartment, the medical cabinet merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use while illumination of the indicator light represents insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – significantly more analysis of additional elements
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 of using a local pharmacy database and remote verification server having a remote pharmacy database (Claim 1) or the pharmacy remote verification apparatus storing non-transitory computer-readable instructions and a local pharmacy processor (Claim 13) to perform the noted steps 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 (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) a remote verifier device (computer, Spec. Para. 0009), (2) a first and second network connection, and (3) plurality of local pharmacy processors were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more.
Additional element (4) has been reevaluated under the significantly more analysis. The medical cabinet merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use while the prior art of record indicates that illuminating an indicator light is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see US 2006/0273168 to Jordan at Para. 0098; see US 2015/0209237 to Kim at Abstract, Para. 0016). The Examiner notes that there is no indication that the illumination of the cabinet indicator light is any different than how cabinets are normally illuminated. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more and that extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2, 3 merely describe(s) the content of the fill information, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) the information concerning the unverifiable option, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 5, 7 merely describe(s) additional transmitted data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) changing the urgency based on determined data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) receiving data and transmitting data accordingly, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) receiving data and removing data accordingly, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 11 merely describe(s) the types of network connections, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) outputting data to be display, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 14 merely describe(s) receiving and transmitting additional data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 15 merely describe(s) removing data and transmitting data accordingly, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 16 merely describe(s) how data is displayed, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) receiving and transmitting additional data based on authentication, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 18 merely describe(s) the additional data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 19 merely describe(s) determining additional data and preventing a prescription from being on the ordered last based on the determination, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim(s) 20 merely describe(s) receiving additional fill information and including it in the ordered list, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 also includes the additional element of a medical cabinet and the optional additional element of unlocking a compartment of a cabinet. Under the practical application analysis, the medical cabinet merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use while unlocking the cabinet represents extra-solution activity. Under the significantly more analysis, the medical cabinet merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use while the prior art of record indicates that unlocking the cabinet is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see US 2018/0225422 to Feldman at Abstract; see US 2003/0120384 to Haitin at Para. 0046, 0123). The Examiner notes that there is no indication that the unlocking of the cabinet is any different than how cabinets are normally unlocked. Claim 16 also includes the additional element of a web browser that displays data. Under the practical application analysis and significantly more analysis, the web browser merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawing which have alleviated the drawing issue. The drawings are accepted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-5 and 7-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
None of these elements, individually or in ordered combination, represent activity that would be well-understood, routine, conventional.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the Applicant is attempting, yet again, to assert an incorrect standard (though the Examiner assumes in good faith). As indicated in the MPEP and discussed on multiple occasions, whether or not the abstraction is well-understood, routine, conventional is immaterial. The well-understood, routine, conventional analysis only applies to additional elements.
The Office Action has cited no evidence, no prior art reference, no industry textbook, no standard, no declaration establishing that pharmacy verification systems were known to implement such a specific, adaptive, headcount-derived threshold formula for triggering remote verification workflows.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully submits that this argument was previously addressed and the Applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why the Examiner response was incorrect. The argued features are part of the abstraction. The MPEP indicates that whether or not the abstraction is well-understood, routine, conventional is immaterial to the analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).”
This mechanism solves a concrete technical problem.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant has not identified what this supposed technical problem is. The Applicant only identified a solution to a non-technical problem.
Here [as with DDR Holdings], the dual-gated activation logic overrides any simplistic or routine routing workflow by imposing a specific, image-completeness precondition that ensures remote verification is only initiated when it can be meaningfully performed. This is not well understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed invention is DDR Holdings was subject matter eligible because it provided a technical solution to a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Applicant has not identified a technical problem.
This is analogous to the situation in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific improvement in how data is organized and accessed by a computer, not merely use of a computer for a conventional purpose, were patent eligible. Here, the urgency-based arrangement is an improvement in how the remote verification workflow operates, directly benefiting patient safety by ensuring that the most time-sensitive prescriptions are addressed first across the entire network.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment of the holding Enfish. Enfish represented an improvement to the data structure utilized by the computer and was thus an improvement to how computers fundamentally operate. Applicant’s “urgency-based arrangement” is not an improvement to the computer. At best, it is an improvement to the abstraction.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Mikhaeil (U.S. 2017/0169188) which describes a pharmacy workflow for prescription checking and dispensing, where the prescription checking includes remote validation of the filled prescription.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights