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
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 24 November 2025.
In the amendment dated 24 November 2025, the following occurred: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/004,885 dated 03 April 2020.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because following figure(s) contain text that is smaller than the permissible limit of 1/8”:
Fig. 4-6 (multiple pieces of text in the dashboard(s) are below 1/8”).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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; however, multiple drawing issues still remain and thus the objection is maintained. Specifically, the text in Figs. 4-6 is below the 1/8” limit. Applicant argues:
Regarding Figs. 4 to 6, the Office Action alleges that some text is less than 1/8". Present Figs. 4 to 6 include text that is greater than 1/8''.
Regarding (a), the Examiner disagrees. There is text in the drawing that is below the 1/8” limit; that there is additional text that is above the 1/8” limit is immaterial.
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:
In contrast to this guidance, the Office Action at pages 4 and 5 highlights most of the claim elements as additional elements. The Office Action argues that the claim elements are not integrated into a practical application other than an abstract idea per se. The Office Action then summarily concludes that the additional elements amount to no more than mere organizing human activity and/or data gathering, and are routine and conventional in the art.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s summary of the basis of rejection is incorrect. The abstract idea is the bolded claim elements as is clearly indicated in the basis of rejection. The Additional elements are also clearly indicated. The additional elements do not represent organizing human activity, the abstract idea represents organizing human activity.
The Office Action is missing the analysis that is spelled out in the memo from August 4, 2025. Namely, the Office Action is silent about how the claim limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. All the additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination and have been found to provide neither a practical application nor significantly more. The Examiner notes that the memo referenced by the Applicant did not represent a change in how eligibility is determined. See Memo at Pg. 1: “This memorandum is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” The current and previous rejections are in accord with MPEP 2106.
For example, the Office Action at page 7 generally concludes that a remote verifier device and network connections generally link an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, the Office Action generally concludes that an indicator light of a cabinet compartment merely generally links an abstract idea to a particular technological field of use while the indicator represents extra-solution activity. The Office Action at pages 8 and 9 then summarily concludes the other claim elements do not provide something significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that this is correct and notes that the Applicant has provided no arguments or reasoning as to why these features might provide a practical application or significantly more.
Conveniently, the Office Action does not provide a discussion about the local pharmacy processor or the remote verification server, which are shown in Fig. I below. Such components cannot be implemented in the abstract. Instead, independent Claims I and 13 recite the location, connectivity, and operability of the local pharmacy processor and the remote verification server, which provide for novel improvements for remote pharmacy verification. The Office Action fails to address the local pharmacy processor, which receives prescription fill information for storage in a local pharmacy database.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These components were identified as additional elements and were analyzed in accord with MPEP 2106. The Applicant has conveniently disregarded this analysis. Further, these additional elements are not part of the abstract idea as clearly indicated in the basis of rejection. Regarding the “improvements” argument, as discussed previously, any improvements resent in the claims are improvements to the abstract idea. There are no physical improvements to the processor/server and there are no improvements to another technology.
Moreover, the Office Action does not provide a discussion about the remote verification server being configured to 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 and 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 on the remote verifier device.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the argued features are part of the abstract idea. The Examiner is at a loss as to what the Applicant is arguing and wonders if the Applicant has read the basis of rejection. There is no “conclusory analysis;” each element of the claim(s) has been thoroughly addressed in the basis of rejection, be it as part of the abstract idea or as additional elements.
At page 13, the Office Action indicates that BASCOM is limited to the unique placement of computer components and concludes the claims of the Subject Application do not include any unique placement of components. The Office Action is overlooking the holding from BASCOM, which states an inventive distribution of functionality within a network constitutes an improvement to computer functionality. (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1243). The operative word is "functionality", not hardware or known parts.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims in BASCOM provided an improvement in the functionality of the system precisely because of the arrangement. The portion of BASCOM cited by the Applicant literally says:
As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. […] Filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, and the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content. […] The claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. Such claims would not contain an inventive concept. […] Nor do the claims preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet; rather, they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content. (emphasis added)
As stated, the filtering is the abstraction (the functionality argued by the Applicant) and the arrangement of the functionality provided the practical application / inventive concept. Applicant’s claims to not recite any such arrangement; the local pharmacy processor and the remote verification server may literally be right next to each other. More importantly and what distinguishes Applicant’s claimed invention from BASCOM, there is no discussion in the as-filed disclosure of problems arising out of the location of various elements or functionality.
Specifically, the claims recite a combination of additional elements including determining a number of operators that are logged into a local pharmacy application and setting a threshold based on the number of operators that are logged into the local pharmacy application, the threshold being proportional to the number of operators that are logged into the local pharmacy application such that the threshold increases by a value between 2 and 20 for each operator that is logged into the local pharmacy application.
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully submits that the features argued by the Applicant are the abstraction, they are not additional elements.
As disclosed in paragraph [0112], the recitations in the claims solve known problems: remote verification enables prescriptions to be quickly verified by a network of remote pharmacists.
Regarding (h), the Examiner respectfully submits that these problems were not caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined; they are not technical problems. They are administrative / medical problems.
The configuration and operations performed by the pharmacy remote verification system provide a technology-based solution by determining when prescription medication verification automatically transfers from local verification to remote verification.
Regarding (i), the Examiner respectfully submits that while this may or may not be true, a “technology-based solution” to a non-technological problem does not provide a practical application or significantly more based on this test. The claims are applying generic computer functionality to perform the abstraction faster/more efficiently. This is using computers for what they are design to be used for. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.).
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:
Jaskela et al. (U.S. 10,430,554) which describes a remote pharmacy fulfillment system that checks a patient’s medication fill request.
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