DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21, as recited in an RCE filed on April 1, 2026, were subject to a non-final office action filed on May 5, 2026 (the “May 5, 2026 Non-Final Office Action”). On August 3, 2026, Applicant submitted further amendments to claims 1, 10, and 20 (the “August 3, 2026 Amendment”). Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16-19, and 21 were not amended in the August 3, 2026 Amendment (except for the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 20 which they individually depend on). As such, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21, as recited in the August 3, 2026 Amendment, are currently pending, and subject to the final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 3, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c)(2), and has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 8-12, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section, filed August 8, 2026, with respect to rejections of claim 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Further, in light of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (available at MPEP § 2106) (the “2019 Revised PEG”), the § 101 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are maintained in this final office action.
First, Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible under § 101, because the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the specific technological implementation is not a concept that can be performed in the human mind or that constitutes managing personal behavior. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Courts have held that a claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity when the claim contains limitations that relate to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). The subgrouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
For example, the Federal Circuit held that an example of a claim reciting a method of managing personal behavior was in In re Meyer, where the claims recited limitations directed to a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Further, example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., where the patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. See id. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. See id.
Similarly, in the present case, Applicant’s claims merely recite limitations for an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred by detecting the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication. These limitations described in claims 1, 10, and 20 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, because they merely recite limitations for: (1) detecting an individual entering a medication detection area (i.e., following rules or instructions to determine when a person enters medication dispensing detection area); (2) generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to generate records); (3) linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to link data to other types of data); (4) filtering the recording data (i.e., following rules or instructions to organize data by filtering/sorting it); and (5) determining the possible diversion event occurred based on determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (i.e., following rules or instructions to identify a possible diversion event occurred when a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(II); see also 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 20 are deemed to recite an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant generally argues that the claims recite a technical improvement over prior art surveillance systems for medication dispensing by defining “a specific technological architecture that improves how surveillance data is captured, organized, transmitted, filtered, analyzed, and acted upon”. See Applicant’s Remarks, at pp. 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument was previously addressed and found to be unpersuasive at least in the Decision on Appeal, filed on February 17, 2026 (the “February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal”) on pages 10-12 and the May 5, 2026 Non-Final Office Action, at pp. 3-6. For example, the PTAB determined that the claims do not recite an improvement, the “[c]laim 1 does not recite, e.g., an improvement in how the dispensing cabinet, surveillance devices, processor, and memory operate.” See the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, at p. 12. The PTAB determined that, “[a]t best, the improvement is to the abstract ideas of mitigating risk and managing personal behavior, in this case by monitoring access to medication and analyzing time stamps on related data.” See the February 17, 2026 Decision on Appeal, at p. 12. Therefore, the claims were not found to recite improvements in technology or some other technological field.
Similarly, the Examiner agrees with the aforementioned Decision on Appeal, because the amended claims fail to provide details for improving technology, such as making the devices more reliable, easier to maintain, and/or reducing device resources (e.g., power, processing time, memory, network bandwidth, and the like), as Applicant suggests. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 11. When evaluating whether claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a technical field, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
For example, in the McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. case, the Federal Circuit relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. Id. Conversely, the Federal Circuit has held claims which merely record, transmit, and archive data by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing the TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto case). Further, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques, was also determined to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (also citing the TLI Communications case).
Similar to the TLI Communications case, Applicant’s claims merely implement conventional techniques, such as generating transaction records associated with a recording (i.e., gathering and storing data); linking the transaction records and different portions of the recording using timestamps (i.e., gathering and storing data); filtering the plurality of records (i.e., analyzing data); and determining the possible diversion event occurred based on detecting that a quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of medication (i.e., analyzing data). Applicant’s amendments to the claims merely apply the existing processes of receiving, transmitting, and analyzing transaction records and records of a possible diversion event in order to determine if a diversion event occurred. Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the Examiner submits that determining whether a possible diversion of a medication has occurred by comparing a detected quantity of the medication to an expected quantity of the medication is a common, existing business practice in the medical industry that is merely being applied on a generic computer/with generic computer devices. The Applicant has not described an improved manner for determining whether the diversion events have occurred, because the step for determining that the diversion occurred merely involves the existing technique of determining that a detected quantity of a medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (encompasses a mental observation or evaluation of someone monitoring medication inventory records).
Further, the Federal Circuit has held that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. See id. Similarly, the Examiner submits that most of the aforementioned steps in Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping; and the additional elements described in the claims (identified in bold under the Prong Two – Step 2A analysis below) amount to: (1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”); and (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant has merely added a general purpose computer to the abstract idea, because the claim invokes computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The claim invokes the data processor and memory storing instructions to perform the existing processes of: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining the possible diversion event occurred based on determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims as a whole do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or to any other technology or technical field. Rather, the amendments to the claims merely add a generic computer device (the main surveillance device hub) for transmitting the linked records to a remote database without integrating the claims into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG.
Next, Applicant argues that the amended claims distinguish from the PTAB’s prior analysis. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, Applicant amended the claims to add a main surveillance device hub that transmits the linked records to a database that is remote from the dispensing cabinet. This does not distinguish the claims over the PTAB’s prior analysis in regard to the § 101 rejections. Rather, adding a main surveillance device hub to transmit the linked records to a remote database amounts to adding a generally purpose computer after the fact to the abstract idea. For example, Applicant’s specification describes the main surveillance device hub in a generic manner, by stating that it is coupled to the dispensing cabinet. See Applicant’s specification, at paragraph [0036]. So, Applicant has amended the claims to transmit the linked records from the main surveillance device hub to a remote database. These amendments to appear to add another generic computer device/component into the system that relays the transaction records. This does not amount to an improvement over prior art systems, rather this amounts to adding another generic computer component after the fact to the identified abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive for this reason.
As such, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained in this office action. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
Notice to Applicant Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 13-17, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 Section, filed August 8, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered, but they are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 21. Furthermore, the prior art search attached to this office action failed to generate closer prior art results. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 10, and 21 are considered to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art and the prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Following Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 21 are directed to a system for automated dispensing of medications, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 10-12, 14, and 16-19 are directed to a method, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See id. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., an article of manufacture). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 10, and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is a system claim, while claims 10 covers the matching method claim and claim 20 covers the matching non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites (and claims 11 and 20 substantially recite) the following limitations:
A system for automated dispensing of medications, comprising:
at least one dispensing cabinet configured to include a medication and having one more drawers;
one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
a motion sensor coupled with the one or more surveillance devices;
at least one data processor;
and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising:
detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet;
generating one or more transaction records associated with the recording;
linking the one or more transaction records to at least a portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event, wherein the one or more transaction records are linked to at least the portion of the recording by associating a first timestamp indicating a transaction time from a respective transaction record with a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event;
transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, wherein the one or more surveillance devices are coupled to a main surveillance device hub at the at least one dispensing cabinet, and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet;
filtering, at the database and based on the one or more transaction records, a plurality of recordings to identify one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event;
determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event by detecting, based on the recording captured by at least one of the one or more surveillance devices, the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication; and
in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity category covers concepts related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e., detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred by detecting the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication), but for the recitation of the generic computer components and functions also recited in claims 1, 10, and 20. That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 1 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 10, and 20 encompasses a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e., detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred by detecting the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1, 10, and 20 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, because they merely recite limitations for: (1) detecting an individual entering a medication detection area (i.e., following rules or instructions to determine when a person enters medication dispensing detection area); (2) generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to generate records); (3) linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event (i.e., following rules or instructions to link data to other types of data); (4) filtering the recording data (i.e., following rules or instructions to organize data by filtering/sorting it); and (5) determining the possible diversion event occurred based on determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication (i.e., following rules or instructions to identify a possible diversion event occurred when a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(II); see also 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 20 also recite an abstract idea that falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 21 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 provide limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 merely recite additional steps for describing the type of data that is used to generating the transactions records (i.e., these steps are deemed to be following instructions or rules for: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred by detecting the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea 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.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (f), (g), and (h).
Following Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In the present case, for independent claims 1, 10, and 20, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system for automated dispensing of medications, comprising (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
at least one dispensing cabinet configured to include a medication and having one more drawers (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a motion sensor coupled with the one or more surveillance devices (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
at least one data processor (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
detecting a triggering event at the at least one dispensing cabinet by the motion sensor (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) determining an individual entering the area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet;
activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
generating one or more transaction records associated with the recording;
linking the one or more transaction records to at least a portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event, wherein the one or more transaction records are linked to at least the portion of the recording by associating a first timestamp indicating a transaction time from a respective transaction record with a second timestamp set indicating a start time and an end time of the portion of the recording that comprises the captured possible diversion event;
transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording from the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), wherein the one or more surveillance devices are coupled to a main surveillance device hub at the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
filtering, at the database (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and based on the one or more transaction records, a plurality of recordings to identify one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event;
determining the possible diversion event occurred based on the identified one or more recordings containing the possible diversion event by detecting, based on the recording captured by at least one of the one or more surveillance devices (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication; and
in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code (as described in claim 20) (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). However, the recitation of these limitations is made with a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices and software for: detecting an individual entering a medication dispensing detection area; generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filtering the recording data; and determining that a possible diversion event occurred by detecting the quantity of the medication retrieved from the at least one dispensing cabinet, and determining that a detected quantity of medication is different from an expected quantity of the medication), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrates merely applying instructions by reciting a computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed invention (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the additional elements recited in claims 1, 10, and 20 described in the Prong One analysis of Step 2A above, invokes general-purpose computer (i.e., the system; dispensing cabinet; one or more surveillance devices, motion sensor; at least one data processor; and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code/at least one memory storing instructions) to perform the commonplace business method for generating transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; linking the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; and filtering the recording data; and
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, (1) the memory storing instructions and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code are examples of generic software that are used to tailor information (i.e., used to generate transaction records associated with a recording of a possible medication diversion event; link the transactions records to the recording of the possible medication diversion event; filter the recording data; and determine that a possible diversion event occurred); and (2) the step directed to: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are examples of generic devices that are used to collect data (i.e., starting a camera to record data when the system determines that an individual has entered an area of detection).
- The following is an example of insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps of: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”, described in claims 1, 10, and 20, are the equivalent of necessary data gathering and data outputting.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 recite the following additional elements (in bold font below):
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 5 and 14); and
wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet (as described in claim 8)/wherein the one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet (as described in claim 17) (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 8 and 17).
As such, the additional elements in dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception 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, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21, when considered as a whole: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) 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 whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(e) and 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 amount to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20, as recited, the system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet; and the steps of: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “based on the recording captured by at least one of the one or more surveillance devices”; “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices”; and “at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet/wherein one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet, and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are generic computer components and functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet; and the steps directed to: “activating, in response to the detection of the triggering event, the one or more surveillance devices to capture a recording comprising a possible diversion event at the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “based on the recording captured by at least one of the one or more surveillance devices”; “accessing, at a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet, the one or more transaction records and the recording captured by the one or more surveillance devices”; and “at least one of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on the at least dispensing cabinet/wherein one or more surveillance devices comprises a first surveillance device positioned on the at least one dispensing cabinet, and wherein a second surveillance device of the one or more surveillance devices is positioned on an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that the surveillance system may include one or more surveillance devices, for example, a video camera, a still image camera, an audio recorder, and/or the like. Applicant’s specification as filed on February 9, 2021, at paragraph [0035]. Further, Applicant discloses that one or more aspects of the subject matter can be realized with a general purpose processor, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and transmit data and instructions to a storage system. Applicant’s specification as filed on February 9, 2021, at paragraph [0075]. Such devices represent well-understood, routine, and conventional devices in the medical industry. Therefore, the devices (system; at least on dispensing cabinet having one or more drawers; one or more surveillance devices, wherein at least one of the one or more surveillance devices includes an area of detection that includes the at least one dispensing cabinet; motion sensor; at least one data processor; at least one memory storing instructions; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code; database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet; an auxiliary device coupled with the at least one dispensing cabinet) are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components in nature and known to the industry. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – the limitations directed to: “transmitting the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording form the one or more surveillance devices to a database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; “and wherein the linked one or more transaction records and at least the portion of the surveillance recording are transmitted from the main surveillance device hub to the database remote from the at least one dispensing cabinet”; and “in response to a determination that the possible diversion event occurred, generating an alert indicating that the possible diversion event has occurred and transmitting a control message to the at least one dispensing cabinet to prevent access to one or more drawers of the at least one dispensing cabinet”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of medical data processing systems and methods, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., collecting and transmitting either: (1) the linked transaction records; (2) an alert/notification indicating the possible medication diversion event has occurred; or (3) a control message, over a network).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, 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 functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 (which depend on claims 1 and 10 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claims 1 and 10. Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 21 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-21 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights