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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 5, 13, and 21-23 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-, 9, 14, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are pending.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 17-20), machine (claims 9-12 and 14-16), and article of manufacture (claims 1-4 and 6-8). Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
-receiving an activation request for activating a medication list generator in association with
clinician-maintained electronic health record for a patient;
-responsive to receiving the activation request for activating the medication list generator,
maintaining a real-time interface between a clinician device and a patient's computing
device for reconciling the clinician-maintained electronic health record for the patient
with medications prescribed to the patient for utilization in clinical decisions;
-receiving, by the clinician device from the patient's computing device, a first transmission
comprising a first photograph of text included on a first label of a first medication;
-determining, using text recognition software, first label information from the first photograph of
the text included on the first label;
-matching the first label information with first catalog information of the first medication
included in a medication catalog;
-executing, by the clinician device, an Application Programming Interface (API) layer to map the
first label information to the clinician-maintained electronic health record;
-in response to (a) matching the first label information with the first catalog information of the
first medication and (b) mapping the first label information to the clinician-maintained
electronic health record, populating a medication list of the clinician-maintained
electronic health record using the first label information and the first catalog information;
-receiving, by the clinician device from the patient's computing device, a second transmission
comprising a second photograph of text included on a second label of a second medication;
-determining, using the text recognition software, second label information from the second
photograph of the text included on the second label;
-matching the second label information with second catalog information of the second medication included in the medication catalog;
-executing, by the clinician device, the API layer to map the second label information to the
clinician-maintained electronic health record;
-in response to (a) matching the second label information with the first catalog information of the
first medication and (b) mapping the first label information to the clinician-maintained
electronic health record, populating the medication list of the clinician-maintained
electronic health record using the second label information and the second catalog
information;
-determining that the medication list omits information including at least one of: a route, a
frequency, or a duration of the first medication;
-responsive to determining that the medication list omits information, generating at least one
visually perceptive element comprising at least a portion of the populated medication list
corresponding to the first medication and indicating the omitted information;
-presenting, by the clinician device on a graphical user interface, the at least one visually
perceptive element indicating the omitted information;
-receiving, in real-time, clinician changes or additions to the populated medication list; and
-based on the clinician changes or additions: updating the medication list of the clinician-
maintained electronic health record to generate an updated medication list of the
clinician-maintained electronic health record,
-wherein the updated medication list of the clinician-maintained electronic health record is
utilized for the clinical decisions.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because maintaining and managing patient’s medication list.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because populating a list with information that is obtained from photographs can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 20, well-known computing systems, para. 23) to perform operations comprising:
-receiving an activation request for activating a medication list generator in association with
clinician-maintained electronic health record for a patient;
-responsive to receiving the activation request for activating the medication list generator,
maintaining a real-time interface between a clinician device and a patient's computing
device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 20) for reconciling the clinician-maintained electronic health record for the patient
with medications prescribed to the patient for utilization in clinical decisions;
-receiving, by the clinician device from the patient's computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 20), a first transmission (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 25)
comprising a first photograph of text included on a first label of a first medication;
-determining, using text recognition software (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 42-47), first label information from the first photograph of the text included on the first label;
-matching the first label information with first catalog information of the first medication
included in a medication catalog;
-executing, by the clinician device, an Application Programming Interface (API) layer to map the first label information to the clinician-maintained electronic health record (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 28, 31);
-in response to (a) matching the first label information with the first catalog information of the
first medication and (b) mapping the first label information to the clinician-maintained
electronic health record, populating a medication list of the clinician-maintained
electronic health record using the first label information and the first catalog information;
-receiving, by the clinician device from the patient's computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 20), a second transmission (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 25) comprising a second photograph of text included on a second label of a second medication;
-determining, using the text recognition software (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 42), second label information from the second
photograph of the text included on the second label;
-matching the second label information with second catalog information of the second medication included in the medication catalog;
-executing, by the clinician device, the API layer to map the second label information to the
clinician-maintained electronic health record (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 28, 31);
-in response to (a) matching the second label information with the first catalog information of the
first medication and (b) mapping the first label information to the clinician-maintained
electronic health record, populating the medication list of the clinician-maintained
electronic health record using the second label information and the second catalog
information;
-determining that the medication list omits information including at least one of: a route, a
frequency, or a duration of the first medication;
-responsive to determining that the medication list omits information, generating at least one visually perceptive element comprising at least a portion of the populated medication list corresponding to the first medication and indicating the omitted information (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34-36);
-presenting, by the clinician device on a graphical user interface, the at least one visually
perceptive element indicating the omitted information (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 34);
-receiving, in real-time, clinician changes or additions to the populated medication list; and
-based on the clinician changes or additions: updating the medication list of the clinician-
maintained electronic health record to generate an updated medication list of the
clinician-maintained electronic health record,
-wherein the updated medication list of the clinician-maintained electronic health record is
utilized for the clinical decisions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 9 and 17 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 9 and 17 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2-4, 10-12, 18-20: The claim specifies text on the first label, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6-8, 14-16: The claim specifies serving visually perceptive element, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving activation request, maintain real-time interface, receive transmission, present visually perceptive element, receive populated medication list, updating medication list, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); matching label information with catalog, map label information to health record, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 6-8, 14-16, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 6-8, 14-16 (serving visually perceptive element), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Based on board decision, see pg. 17-19, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 has been withdrawn.
Based on board decision, see pg. 19-20, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims cannot be considered to encompass an abstract idea because the claim recites operations that cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner states that an updated rejection on the limitations considered to be abstract idea are provided and explained. Furthermore, the steps the Applicant recites not considered to be abstract idea are considered to be additional elements and have been analyzed above as such.
Applicant argues that the claim improves the functioning of the computer; the specification describing the technological problems of capturing information from photographs of physical medications using a computing system. The alleged improvement that the Applicant touts does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in receiving information for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. Here, the Applicant is not trying to cure a shortcoming in existing computer technology. The Applicant does not contend that it was necessary to develop innovative computer hardware/software in order to perform the steps recited in independent claims.
Applicant argues that the claimed operations recite a particular technological solution to a technological problem. Examiner disagrees. The present invention solves the problem associated with capturing information from photographs, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akinwale et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2017/0068798 – Teaches a system for translating a prescription into a standardized format.
Vidal et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2014/0353049 – Teaches production of a list of medicaments based on patient’s weight.
Naaman – U.S. Publication No. 2013/0182295 – Teaches a system for extracting prescription information from a medicine bottle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on 469-295-9171. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686