DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2025, has been entered.
In response, the Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 13, 15, and 17. Claim 19 was cancelled. Claim 14 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
“Amended claim 1 recites….Applicant respectfully disagrees and reiterates that these recitations provide technical solutions to a technical problem and are no way related to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people….Also, initiating a telehealth session via the electronic device and the physician electronic device cannot be reasonably interpreted as a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Moreover, determining, based on a global positioning system, a location of the patient electronic device also cannot be reasonably interpreted as a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Additionally, a trait of the order comprising at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy also cannot be reasonably interpreted as a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people. Applicant respectfully asserts that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application based on the technical solution recited in the amendments. These recitations are rooted in computer technology. Initiating a telehealth session between two devices is not an abstract idea, but rather, a technological process. Further, determining a location of a device using GPS is also not an abstract idea, but rather, a technological process. Likewise, determining a pickup-time of an order at a location of a pharmacy based at least on a travel time from a location of a patient electronic device to a location of a pharmacy includes technical processes to accurately locate the patient's electronic device in relation to the pharmacy and determine a pick-up time based on a travel time.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant’s argument that “initiating a telehealth session…” and “determining, based on a global positioning system (GPS), a location…” and “select…a first list of network pharmacies meeting a trait of the order, wherein a trait of the order comprising at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy” somehow provides a technical solution to a technical problem is conclusory and therefore cannot be persuasive. The technical problem alluded to by the Applicant is unclear. Furthermore, merely “initiating a telehealth session” and “determining, based on a global positioning system (GPS), a location…” and “select…a first list of network pharmacies meeting a trait of the order, wherein a trait of the order comprising at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy” are hardly technical solutions. The Examiner finds no technical problem being addressed by the instant claims. Nor does the Examiner see a technical solution to which the claims are directed. Applicant’s specification provides very few, if any, details regarding “initiating a telehealth session” between a patient device and physician device. It appears as if initiating a telehealth session merely comprises establishing communication between two general purpose computers over a network. As explained in paragraphs [0019]-[0020] of Applicant’s published disclosure, such “virtual” appointments may be used as an alternative for in-person physical office visits. As such, there is no technical problem being addressed, or technical solution being claimed. The need for patients and physicians to communicate and/or visit with one another existed prior to computers. It is an abstract business/personal problem. That general purpose computers are used to facilitate this communication amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (i.e., merely using computers as tools in their ordinary capacity). Relatedly, the need to know the location of the patient in order to identify relevant/nearby pharmacies is not a technical problem. This same problem existed prior to computers. It is an abstract business/personal problem. That the received location data may be “based on a global positioning system” simply suggests that a general-purpose computer was used at some point to provide the location data. There is no technical problem or solution here. Furthermore, the desire to find a pharmacy that a patient can get to by/within a certain time is not a technical problem. This is a subject problem from the perspective of the patient, and it existed prior to computers. That a location of the patient electronic device is used to determine estimated travel time does not make the problem or solution any more technical. See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”). See also In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022) (“But utility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s cases.”); and SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.”) (citation omitted
A claim may be directed to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) while reciting limitations that are performed by computers. Initiating a telehealth session may require technology, but it amounts to a requirement to initiate a meeting between the physician and patient using generic computer (i.e., merely using computers as tools in their ordinary capacity). That general purpose computers are used to facilitate this communication amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The same is true for determining a location of the patient device “based on” a GPS (e.g., receiving a location of the device, wherein the location was at some point based on a GPS), or determining estimated travel time based on location of device.
The claimed subject matter involves communicating with physicians, pharmacies, and patients in order to identify medical supply orders and to identify a pharmacy to fill the order (i.e., sell/transact the medical supply, such as a prescription medicine), and therefore clearly amounts to a sales activity or behavior (and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions). The plain focus of the claims is not on an improvement to computer functionality. Furthermore, any computers used directly (e.g., “a memory…a processor”) or indirectly (e.g., “via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device”, “based on a global positioning system”) are used in their ordinary capacity.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “… Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com et a. the Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were patent eligible,,.The claims in the instant case are similar to those in DDR Holdings because they recite displaying, by the patient electronic device, a first list of network pharmacies with the travel time to a pharmacy and the price of the order specified by a network of pharmacies without communicating with the network of pharmacies. Further, the instant claims also recite displaying, by the patient electronic device, a second list of network pharmacies with the availability of the pharmacies to fill the order, the travel time to the pharmacy, and the price of the order at each pharmacy by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies. Thus, the user is able to view order-related information, such as availability to fill the order and price of the order at each pharmacy by using the patient electronic device without having to leave the display of the patient electronic device and access the network of pharmacies. Applicant respectfully asserts that such recitations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing significantly more than the abstract idea, similar to the claims in DDR Holdings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
“Displaying…without communicating with the network of pharmacies” is not equivalent to the improvement to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 109. The requirement to display this information “by the patient electronic device” with or without communicating with the network of pharmacies, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to a conventional computing environment such as the internet, where information is exchanged digitally between computing devices over a network and wherein the computing devices are proxies for humans as opposed to physically/audibly between human beings. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This same logic applies to the displaying of the second list “by the patient electronic device”. Examiner notes that there is nothing in the original disclosure to suggest there was a problem with conventional systems associated with “having to leave the display of the patient electronic device and access the network of pharmacies”. The Examiner finds no discussion of a technical problem being addressed by the instant claims here. Nor does the Examiner see a technical solution to which the claims are directed. Doing something (displaying data) “without communicating with a network of pharmacies” is not a technical solution.
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “Further, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that… Applicants Specification explains that aspects of the claimed technology provide improvements and enhancements over conventional systems, for instance by…
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Utility is not the standard for eligibility. Nothing in the cited paragraphs explain how the claimed invention addresses a technical problem. As discussed above, the need for patients and physicians to communicate and/or visit with one another existed prior to computers. It is an abstract business/personal problem. That general purpose computers are used to facilitate this communication amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (i.e., merely using computers as tools in their ordinary capacity). Relatedly, the need to know the location of the patient in order to identify relevant/nearby pharmacies is not a technical problem. This same problem existed prior to computers. It is an abstract business/personal problem. That the received location data may be “based on a global positioning system” simply suggests that a general-purpose computer was used at some point to provide the location data. There is no technical problem or solution here. Furthermore, the desire to find a pharmacy that a patient can get to by/within a certain time is not a technical problem. This is a subject problem from the perspective of the patient, and it existed prior to computers. That a location of the patient electronic device is used to determine estimated travel time does not make the problem or solution any more technical.
Applicant specifically argues that
4) “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that "not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas" (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)II), and that the limitations of the independent claims are not analogous to any of the examples of this category of abstract ideas listed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).II.C…Applicant notes that all of the provided examples in the above-cited portion of the MPEP correspond merely to instructions or rules that can simply be relayed to a human and then performed by the human.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fourth argument.
Applicant’s assertion that “all of the provided examples…can simply be relayed to a human and then performed by the human” is incorrect, and irrelevant. The MPEP states that “the sub-groupings encompass…certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping”. Applicant’s cited examples do not include all of the examples discussed in the MPEP. Furthermore, a claim may include limitations/steps that a human cannot practically perform, and may still be directed to subject matter falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Whether or not a claim includes limitations/steps that a human cannot practically perform in their mind or with pen and paper is not part of the analysis for whether or not a claim recites limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant specifically argues that
Also, claim limitations that improve an existing technological process (not limited to simply the "computer technology") are not directed to a mere abstract idea…Here, functions such as initiation of a telehealth session between two devices, determining a position of a device using a global positioning system, and determining a pick- up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Specifically, implementing at least one limitation of claim 1 requires complex processing and therefore imposes meaningful limits on the claim. (See MPEP §2164.04(d); "If the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and the claim is eligible at Step 2A."). Applicant respectfully notes that the limitations of these claims amount to significantly more than any abstract idea because the recited structural elements are required to execute the limitations of the claims and are therefore inseparable from these limitations. Further, these limitations, taken as a whole, constitute an improvement to the technological field of prescription matching platforms and exchange and delivery of pharmaceuticals to patients using techniques rooted in computer technology. Applicant respectfully notes that such an improvement is not constrained by a requirement to improve the functioning of a computer, but is expressly permitted to be an improvement to "any other technology or technical field," which is precisely what the limitations, inter alia, accomplish (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II))
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fifth argument.
As discussed above, the Examiner disagrees that the mentioned functions amount to technical solutions to technical problems. As discussed above, whether or not a claim includes limitations/steps that a human cannot practically perform in their mind or with pen and paper is not part of the analysis for whether or not a claim recites limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Any improvements to the field of prescription match matching platforms are improvements to the an idea itself (e.g., sorting based on travel time).
v Applicant’s argument, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1 and 15 (as well as each of dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20), under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John, Hassad, Gilman, Lamoncha, and Siegel has been considered, but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues“(a)mended independent claim 1 recites….none of the cited references appear to teach or suggest at least the above-emphasized portions of the amended independent claims…none of these portions of Hassad or any other portion of Hassad teaches or suggests receiving, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order, an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order. That is, Hassad appears to be silent regarding providing pharmacies that are available to fill an order based on a travel time to the pharmacy and a price of the order at the pharmacy. Further, Hassad certainly fails to teach or suggest, transmitting, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order that satisfy the travel time and the price of the order, wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed with the availability, the travel time, and the price by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies, as recited by the independent claims. The other cited references also fail to teach or suggest displaying a second list of pharmacies on a patient electronic device where the availability of the pharmacies to fill the order is displayed, the travel time from the patient’s location to the pharmacies is displayed, and the price of the order at the pharmacies is displayed. ” This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the references individually (specifically, argues Hassad fails to teach all of these limitations). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, John (the primary reference) discloses selecting, from the network of pharmacies, a first list of network pharmacies meeting a trait of the order, ([0026] “the virtual pharmacy can perform one or more real-time processes to determine actual/dispensing pharmacies that meet the location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements of the patient or customer”, [0034], [0152], see also [0156]-[0163) and wherein the trait of the order comprises at least a price of the order ([0152]-[0155] the trait of the order may also include various pre-negotiated rates or pricing requirements/factors of one or more payors or entities, see also [0160]-[0162] where price threshold may be used, see also [0241]-[0247] at least) and a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy to pick up the order ([0026] “location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements of the patient or customer”, [0051]-[0053] patient may have location preferences and these are traits of an order for the patient, [0148]-[0151]). John discloses receiving, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection, from the first list of network pharmacies, of a second list of network pharmacies; (([0025] “Accordingly, the patient or customer may be presented with a listing of various dispensing pharmacy locations and associated cost/pricing…in order to facilitate a patient or customer’s decision as to which pharmacy to fill a prescription at…patient or customer can then use the patient device/computer to select a dispensing pharmacy to fill the prescription at…”, [0026] “receives a selection of a dispensing pharmacy from the patient device…”, [0035] “receive a selection from the patient for one or more actual/dispensing pharmacies to fill the prescription at”). While john does not explicitly disclose that the pharmacy location preference(s) trait is at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy, Seigel discloses that a known pharmacy location preference(s) trait was at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy ([0067] “plurality of pharmacies may be identified based on…location criterion…may determine which pharmacies, from an available number of pharmacies, meet the location criterion…location criterion may be used to filter the available number of pharmacies…location criterion may be a distance proximity, a time proximity…may be a factor of…distance proximity in combination with a time proximity” & [0069] “time proximity may be a threshold time to reach a pharmacy from a given location (e.g., the location received at step 104…maximum time from the location to a pharmacy…may be determined dynamically based on, for example, traffic patterns…time to reach a pharmacy may be determined based on…mode of transportation…Accordingly, a list of pharmacies may be filtered based on time proximity…” – Examiner notes location received at 104 is GPS location from users mobile device per [0049], [0083] “map 600 that includes a user’s current location 602…each of the plurality of pharmacies…may meet a time proximity criteria (e.g., within 20 minutes from location 602…”, see also [0070] & [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to include use of Siegel’s order trait as discussed below in the rejection. As such, the combination of John and Siegel disclose wherein the first list of network pharmacies provided to the patent include pharmacies meeting the trait requirements of “price of the order” and “travel time”. As such, any selected pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies can be said to be “based on the travel time and the price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits.
The claimed “second list of network pharmacies” is what the patient selects from the first list of network pharmacies. As such each of the pharmacies in the second list of network pharmacies necessarily “satisfies the travel time and the price of the order” traits (again, because each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits, and therefore each pharmacy in the select list satisfies these required traits).
Although John suggests the system may include information associated with the inventory levels at each pharmacy ([0067]), John does not appear to disclose, wherein
John in view of Siegel do not appear to disclose receiving an indication of an availability to fill the order from each pharmacy in the second list of pharmacies, or transmitting this availability to the patient device, or receiving a selection from the patient of a pharmacy in the second list after the indication of the availability to fill is transmitted to the patient. However, Hassad discloses these limitations. Hassad discloses receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list, an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order; ([0026]-[0027] “after the pharmaceutical medication location request…an in-stock pharmacy list is generated from the subset of local pharmacy accounts…thus, the in-stock pharmacy list is a list of pharmacies local to the consumer that have the desired pharmaceutical location in-stock and available for the consumer to obtain…”, see also [0028] and [0032]); transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order; ([0027] “…thus, the in-stock pharmacy list is a list of pharmacies local to the consumer that have the desired pharmaceutical location in-stock and available for the consumer to obtain. The in-stock pharmacy list is transmitted to the PC device of the specified consumer account… the consumer is then able to view the local pharmacies where the desired pharmaceutical medication is able to be acquired”, see also [0028] and [0032]); and receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order; ([0027] “the consumer is then able to view the local pharmacies where the desired pharmaceutical medication is able to be acquired…”, [0032] “such that the user…is able to review…to locate and arrange the desired pharmaceutical medication” (i.e., receive a selection of one of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order), see also [0023] where the acknowledgement received from the patient device is a selection – Examiner notes that John has already taught wherein an indication of a desired pharmacy comprises receiving in indication representing a selection from the patient device).
Hassad need not disclose that each pharmacy in the second list of pharmacies had been selected originally based on the travel time and price traits, as John in view of Siegel already disclose this. Hassad is merely being relied on to disclose the subsequent steps associated with determining indications of availability to fill the order from each pharmacy, transmitting this availability information to the user, and receiving a selection based at least in part on the availability to fill the order. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite “based on the travel time and the price of the order, receive…an indication representing a selection, from the first list of network pharmacies, of a second list of network pharmacies”. The claims subsequent refer to “each pharmacy in the second list that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order”. The claims subsequently refer to “the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order that satisfy the travel time and the price of the order, wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed”. The claims subsequently recite “based on the availability to fill the order, the travel time, and the price of the order, receive, from the patient…an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order”.
The claims require that the first list of network pharmacies provided to the patent include pharmacies meeting the trait requirements of “price of the order” and “travel time”. As such, all of the pharmacies in the first list satisfy the travel time and the price of the order. As such, any selected pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies can be said to be “based on the travel time and the price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits. The claimed “second list of network pharmacies” is what the patient selects from the first list of network pharmacies. As such each of the pharmacies in the second list of network pharmacies necessarily “satisfies the travel time and the price of the order” traits (again, because each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits, and therefore each pharmacy in the select list satisfies these required traits). Furthermore, receiving any selection of one or more pharmacies from the second list of pharmacies can be said to be “based on the travel time and the price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the second list of network pharmacies was selected from the first list of pharmacies, which where each selected for inclusion in the first list of pharmacies based on these traits.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite “wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies”. This limitation merits no patentable weight, as it does not set for a step of the claimed method, nor a function of the claimed apparatus. It is descriptive of events occurring external to the scope of the claimed invention, and the description of this activity has no affect on any of the steps/functions of the claimed method/apparatus. The claimed method/apparatus require only “transmitting, to the patient electronic device, the availability…”. The apparatus does not display the information. This is subsequent step is external to the apparatus.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18, and 20 is/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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 1-13 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 15) recites/describes the following steps;
initiate a…session between the patient… and the physician…
determine, based on a global positioning system (GPS) a location of the patient… wherein the location is used as a trait associated with the patient
receive, from one of the physician…and patient…an order for the medical supply where the order has a trait and is associated with the patient;
select, from the network of pharmacies, a first list of network pharmacies meeting a trait of the order, wherein the trait of the order comprises at least a price of the order and one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient…to the location of the pharmacy;
transmit, to the patient…the first list of network pharmacies;
based on the travel time and the price of the order, receive, from the patient…an indication representing a selection, from the first list of network pharmacies, of a second list of network pharmacies;
receive, from each pharmacy…in the second list that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order, an…indication of the availability to fill the order;
transmit, to the patient…the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order that satisfy the travel time and the price of the order, wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed
based on the availability to fill the order, the travel time, and the price of the order, receive, from the patient…an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order; and
generate a prescription ID associated with the order
transmit, to…the selected pharmacy, the order to be filled by the selected pharmacy
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a business process for facilitating a health session between a patient and physician, and coordinating the selection of a pharmacy from a plurality of pharmacies to fill an order for a medical supply based on stock availability, order traits (e.g., location, price, time proximity etc.), and user preferences (e.g.,, selections from lists of potential pharmacies) and facilitation of the filling of the order by transmitting the order to the selected pharmacy, which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“a system…the system comprising: a memory for storing machine-readable instructions; a processor in communication with the memory wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to” (claim 1)
“a physician electronic device associated with a physician…a patient electronic device associated with a patient…a pharmacy electronic device associated with a pharmacy…the location of the patient electronic device… from one of the physician electronic device and patient electronic device…the location of the patient electronic device…to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from the patient electronic device…from each pharmacy electronic device…an electronic indication… to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 1)
“to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from each pharmacy electronic device…to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 15)
“a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device” (claims 1 and 15)
“a location of the patient electronic device” (claims 1 and 15)
“patient electronic device” (claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11)
“physician electronic device” (claims 8 and 11)
“pharmacy electronic device” (claims 9 and 12)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system…the system comprising: a memory for storing machine-readable instructions; a processor in communication with the memory wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to” (claim 1) and/or “a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicants own disclosure suggests that the system device may be a general-purpose computer (e.g., see para [0039] “systems described herein can be implemented using a general-purpose computer or general-purpose processor…”) This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “a physician electronic device associated with a physician…a patient electronic device associated with a patient…a pharmacy electronic device associated with a pharmacy…the location of the patient electronic device… from one of the physician electronic device and patient electronic device…the location of the patient electronic device…to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from the patient electronic device…from each pharmacy electronic device…an electronic indication… to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 1) or “to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from each pharmacy electronic device…to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 15) and/or “a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) and/or “a location of the patient electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) and/or “patient electronic device” (claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11) and/or “physician electronic device” (claims 8 and 11) and/or “pharmacy electronic device” (claims 9 and 12) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to a conventional computing environment such as the internet, where information is exchanged digitally between computing devices over a network and wherein the computing devices are proxies for humans as opposed to physically/audibly between human beings. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein the order is as an order for a prescription medication”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system…the system comprising: a memory for storing machine-readable instructions; a processor in communication with the memory wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to” (claim 1) and/or “a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “a physician electronic device associated with a physician…a patient electronic device associated with a patient…a pharmacy electronic device associated with a pharmacy…the location of the patient electronic device… from one of the physician electronic device and patient electronic device…the location of the patient electronic device…to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from the patient electronic device…from each pharmacy electronic device…an electronic indication… to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 1) or “to the patient electronic device…that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies…from each pharmacy electronic device…to the patient electronic device…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies… from the patient electronic device…to the pharmacy electronic device” (claim 15) and/or “a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) and/or “a location of the patient electronic device” (claims 1 and 15) and/or “patient electronic device” (claims 3-5, 8, 9, and 11) and/or “physician electronic device” (claims 8 and 11) and/or “pharmacy electronic device” (claims 9 and 12) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
v Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
v Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite “transmit, to the patient electronic device, the first list of network pharmacies that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies” and “wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies”. These limitations contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per MPEP 2173.05(i) “(a)ny negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure…The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion…silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation…Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.” In this case, the negative limitations of “transmit, to the patient electronic device, the first list of network pharmacies that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies” and “wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies” have no support in the original disclosure. As such the claims recite subject matter that has no basis in the original disclosure, and fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Each of the dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on this one of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
v Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0253833, October 4, 2012 - hereinafter "John”) in view of Siegel (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0065862 March 4, 2021 - hereinafter "Siegel”) in view of Hassad (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0147994, May 16, 2019 - hereinafter "Hassad”) in view of Gilman et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2018/0253682 September 6, 2018 - hereinafter "Gilman”) in view of Lamoncha (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0065861, March 4, 2021 - hereinafter "Lamoncha”)
With respect to claims 1 and 15, John teaches a system facilitating dispense of a medical supply to a patient ([0025]), and a method for facilitating dispense of a medical supply to a patient, comprising:
a memory for storing machine-readable instructions; (Fig 1 tag 105, Fig 2 tag 228, [0027])
a processors in communication with the memory wherein the processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: (Fig 1 tag 105, Fig 2 tag 226, [0027])
communicate with a physician electronic device associated with a physician; (Fig 1 tags 105 and 110, Fig 2 tag 202, [0027], [0060])
communicate with a patient electronic device associated with a patient; (Fig 1 tags 105 and 115, Fig 2 tag 206, [0027])
communicate with a pharmacy electronic device associated with a pharmacy, wherein the pharmacy is associated with a network of pharmacies; (Fig 1 tags 105 and 120a, Fig 2 tag 203, [0023], [0027], [0056] “dispensing pharmacies can similarly register…”)
determine, based on a global positioning system (GPS), a location of the patient electronic device, wherein the location is used as a trait associated with the patient ([0054] “determine a current address of the patient…may be based upon global positioning system (GPS) coordinates associated with a patient mobile device”, see also [0151] & [0182] & [0195]-[0197])
receive, from one of the physician electronic device and patient electronic device, an order for the medical supply ([0024]-[0026] “healthcare provider (e.g., a prescribing physician)…delivery an electronic prescription to a virtual pharmacy…may likewise receive prescriptions via…website…patient or customer can likewise interact with a virtual pharmacy using a patient device…mobile phone application…can deliver or direct the delivery of an electronic prescription to a virtual pharmacy”, [0033], see also [0088] and [0143])
where the order has a trait and is associated with the patient; ([0026] “location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements of the patient or customer”, [0051]-[0053] patient may have location preferences and these are traits of an order for the patient, [0148]-[0151])
select, from the network of pharmacies, a first list of network pharmacies meeting a trait of the order; ([0026] “the virtual pharmacy can perform one or more real-time processes to determine actual/dispensing pharmacies that meet the location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements of the patient or customer”, [0034], [0152], see also [0156]-[0163)
wherein the trait of the order comprises at least a price of the order ([0152]-[0155] the trait of the order may also include various pre-negotiated rates or pricing requirements/factors of one or more payors or entities, see also [0160]-[0162] where price threshold may be used, see also [0241]-[0247] at least)
and a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on the location of the patient electronic device ([0026] “location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements of the patient or customer”, [0051]-[0053] patient may have location preferences and these are traits of an order for the patient, [0148]-[0151]).
transmit, to the patient electronic device, the first list of network pharmacies that is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies; ([0026] “the virtual pharmacy…determine actual/dispensing pharmacies that meet the location preferences and/or healthcare plan ‘in-network’ requirements…can then deliver or direct the delivery of the pricing…information in real-time to the patient device/computer” – the information is displayed by the patent device without the patient device communicating with the network of pharmacies, [0034], [0090]-[0091] “provide a presentation to the patient of the one or more actual/dispensing pharmacies…enable the patient to select one or more”, [0164])
based on the location and the price of the order, receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection, from the first list of network pharmacies, of a second list of network pharmacies; (([0025] “Accordingly, the patient or customer may be presented with a listing of various dispensing pharmacy locations and associated cost/pricing…in order to facilitate a patient or customer’s decision as to which pharmacy to fill a prescription at…patient or customer can then use the patient device/computer to select a dispensing pharmacy to fill the prescription at…”, [0026] “receives a selection of a dispensing pharmacy from the patient device…”, [0035] “receive a selection from the patient for one or more actual/dispensing pharmacies to fill the prescription at”)
each pharmacy in the second list that satisfies the price of the order (as discussed above all of the pharmacies in the first list satisfy the price of the order. As such, any selected pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies can be said to be “based on the…price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on this trait. The claimed “second list of network pharmacies” is what the patient selects from the first list of network pharmacies. As such each of the pharmacies in the second list of network pharmacies necessarily “satisfies…the price of the order” trait (again, because each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits, and therefore each pharmacy in the select list satisfies these required traits))
transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, the order to be filled by the selected pharmacy ([0025] “…patient or customer can then use the patient device/computer to select a dispensing pharmacy to fill the prescription at…the virtual pharmacy can direct a delivery of the prescription to the selected dispensing pharmacy”, [0026] “receives a selection of a dispensing pharmacy from the patient device…deliver or direct delivery of the prescription to the selected dispensing pharmacy”, [0036])
Although John suggests the system may include information associated with the inventory levels at each pharmacy ([0067]), John does not appear to disclose,
initiate a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device
wherein the trait of the order comprises at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy
based on the travel time…receive…an indication representing a selection from the first list of network pharmacies, or a second list of network pharmacies
receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list that satisfies the travel time…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order;
transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order that satisfy the travel time…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location that satisfies the travel time and the price of the order is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies
based on the availability to fill the order, the travel time, and the price of the order, receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order;
generate a prescription ID associated with the order
However, Siegel discloses
wherein the trait of the order comprises at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy ([0067] “plurality of pharmacies may be identified based on…location criterion…may determine which pharmacies, from an available number of pharmacies, meet the location criterion…location criterion may be used to filter the available number of pharmacies…location criterion may be a distance proximity, a time proximity…may be a factor of…distance proximity in combination with a time proximity” & [0069] “time proximity may be a threshold time to reach a pharmacy from a given location (e.g., the location received at step 104…maximum time from the location to a pharmacy…may be determined dynamically based on, for example, traffic patterns…time to reach a pharmacy may be determined based on…mode of transportation…Accordingly, a list of pharmacies may be filtered based on time proximity…” – Examiner notes location received at 104 is GPS location from users mobile device per [0049], [0083] “map 600 that includes a user’s current location 602…each of the plurality of pharmacies…may meet a time proximity criteria (e.g., within 20 minutes from location 602…”, see also [0070] & [0073])
Siegel suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the trait of the order comprises at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the customer is able to obtain the order in a timely fashion and in a time-frame of their liking, and more generally that the pharmacy fulfilling their order meets the patients preferences ([0067, [0069], [0070], [0073], and [0083])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of John to include wherein the trait of the order comprises at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy, as taught by Siegel, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the customer is able to obtain the order in a timely fashion and in a time-frame of their liking, because distance is not always correlated with fastest pick-up time, and more generally that the pharmacy fulfilling their order meets the patients preferences2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the location-based trait used to qualify potential nearby pharmacies for inclusion in the first list of pharmacies of Siegel (i.e., at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy for the location-based trait used to qualify potential nearby pharmacies for inclusion in the first list of pharmacies (i.e., distance from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy) of John. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Furthermore, as in Siegel, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of John to include wherein the trait of the order comprises at least one pick-up time of the order at a location of the pharmacy determined based at least on a travel time from the location of the patient electronic device to the location of the pharmacy. Furthermore, as in Siegel, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the pharmacy fulfilling their order meets the patients preferences, as is needed in John.
Examiner notes that, per the combination of John in view of Siegel, all of the pharmacies in the first list satisfy the travel time and the price of the order. As such, any selected pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies can be said to be “based on the travel time and the price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits. The claimed “second list of network pharmacies” is what the patient selects from the first list of network pharmacies. As such each of the pharmacies in the second list of network pharmacies necessarily “satisfies the travel time and the price of the order” traits (again, because each pharmacy from the first list of network pharmacies was selected for inclusion in the first list based on these traits, and therefore each pharmacy in the select list satisfies these required traits). Furthermore, receiving any selection of one or more pharmacies from the second list of pharmacies can be said to be “based on the travel time and the price of the order”, as each pharmacy from the second list of network pharmacies was selected from the first list of pharmacies, which where each selected for inclusion in the first list of pharmacies based on these traits.
John and Siegel do not appear to disclose,
initiate a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device
receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order;
transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies
based on the availability to fill the order… receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order;
generate a prescription ID associated with the order
However, Hassad discloses
receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order; ([0026]-[0027] “after the pharmaceutical medication location request…an in-stock pharmacy list is generated from the subset of local pharmacy accounts…thus, the in-stock pharmacy list is a list of pharmacies local to the consumer that have the desired pharmaceutical location in-stock and available for the consumer to obtain…”, see also [0028] and [0032])
transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies ([0027] “…thus, the in-stock pharmacy list is a list of pharmacies local to the consumer that have the desired pharmaceutical location in-stock and available for the consumer to obtain. The in-stock pharmacy list is transmitted to the PC device of the specified consumer account… the consumer is then able to view the local pharmacies where the desired pharmaceutical medication is able to be acquired” – the client device displays the information without communicating with the network of pharmacies directely, see also [0028] and [0032])
based on the availability to fill the order… receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order; ([0027] “the consumer is then able to view the local pharmacies where the desired pharmaceutical medication is able to be acquired…”, [0032] “such that the user…is able to review…to locate and arrange the desired pharmaceutical medication” (i.e., receive a selection of one of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order) – this is “based on the availability to fill the order” because the list of displayed pharmacies were identified based on this trait, see also [0023] where the acknowledgement received from the patient device is a selection – Examiner notes that John has already taught wherein an indication of a desired pharmacy comprises receiving in indication representing a selection from the patient device)
Hassad suggests it is advantageous to receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies, and based on the availability to fill the order… receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order, because doing so can further refine the list of possible pharmacies to those that actually have the ability to presently fill the order based on current inventory which may increase patient convenience and fulfillment efficiency ([0026]-[0028] & [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of John in view of Seigel to receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies, and based on the availability to fill the order… receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order, as taught by Hassad, because doing so can further refine the list of possible pharmacies to those that actually have the ability to presently fill the order based on current inventory which may increase patient convenience and fulfillment efficiency2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (in this case pharmacy filtering/matching steps), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would further refine the list of possible pharmacies to those that actually have the ability to presently fill the order based on current inventory which may increase patient convenience and fulfillment efficiency.
Furthermore, as in Hassad, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of John in view of Siegel to receive, from each pharmacy electronic device of each pharmacy in the second list…an electronic indication of the availability to fill the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the availability of the pharmacies in the second list to fill the order…wherein the second list of the pharmacies available to fill the order at a location…is displayed by the patient electronic device without communicating with the network of pharmacies, and based on the availability to fill the order… receive, from the patient electronic device, an indication representing a selection by the patient of a selected pharmacy, from the second list of pharmacies, to fill the order. Furthermore, as in Hassad, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would increase patient convenience and fulfillment efficiency, as is needed in John.
John, Siegel, and Hassad do not appear to disclose,
initiating a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device
generate a prescription ID associated with the order
However, Gilman discloses
generate a prescription ID associated with the order ([0051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215] token is generated which comprises a prescription ID associated with the order – The tracking token is unique to an order and both acts as order identification information and encodes order identification information such as the pharmacy items in the order and the user(s) authorized to receive the order - In other words, the token may be used by the patent to confirm the order and identify of the patient prior to the pharmacy providing the patient with the order. As such, it reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “prescription ID”, and it is generated by the system)
Gilman suggests it is advantageous to generate a prescription ID associated with the order, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of John in view of Siegel in view of Hassad to generate a prescription ID associated with the order, as taught by Gilman, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so.
John, Sigel, Hassad, and Gilman do not appear to disclose,
initiating a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device
However, Lamoncha discloses
initiating a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device ([0053]-[0055] “telehealth module…configured to facilitate telemedicine visits between a patient and the healthcare provider…video conferencing sessions…patient may elect to participate in a telehealth visit…”)
Lamoncha suggests it is advantageous to initiate a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to for a patient to discuss a health concern with a healthcare provider and potentially obtain an order for a medical supply ([0003]-[00095] & [0053]-[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of John in view of Siegel in view of Hassad in view of Gilman to initiate a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device, as taught by Lamoncha, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to for a patient to discuss a health concern with a healthcare provider and potentially obtain an order for a medical supply which would increase patient convenience and further facilitate the process for filling orders.2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to for a patient to discuss a health concern with a healthcare provider and potentially obtain an order for a medical supply which would increase patient convenience and further facilitate the process for filling orders.
Furthermore, as in Lamoncha, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of John to initiate a telehealth session via the patient electronic device and the physician electronic device. Furthermore, as in Lamoncha, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to for a patient to discuss a health concern with a healthcare provider and potentially obtain an order for a medical supply which would increase patient convenience and further facilitate the process for filling orders, as is needed in John.
With respect to claims 2 and 16, John teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15;
wherein the order is as an order for a prescription medication ([0005] “prescription drug or products”, [0023], [0104]-[0106])
With respect to claims 3 and 17, John teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15;
wherein the trait of the order is based on the location received from the patient electronic device ([0051]-[0054] “Pharmacy location preferences…specified location and distance/radius…for purposes of locating pharmacies within proximity to the specified address…can determine a current address of the patient…may be based upon…GPS coordinates associated with a patient mobile device…”, see also [0148]-[0151] & [0194]-[0198])
With respect to claims 4 and 18, John teaches the system of claim 3 and the method of claim 15;
wherein the location received from the patient electronic device is based on a physical location of the patient electronic device ([0051]-[0054] “Pharmacy location preferences…specified location and distance/radius…for purposes of locating pharmacies within proximity to the specified address…can determine a current address of the patient…may be based upon…GPS coordinates associated with a patient mobile device…”, see also [0148]-[0151] & [0194]-[0198])
With respect to claim 5, John teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the processor is configured to receive, from the patient electronic device, a selection by the patient of the trait of the order([0051]-[0054] “Pharmacy location preferences…specified location and distance/radius…for purposes of locating pharmacies within proximity to the specified address…can determine a current address of the patient…may be based upon…GPS coordinates associated with a patient mobile device…” – the location preference (e.g., proximity/radius requirement) may be input (i.e., “selected) by the patient using their device, see also [0148]-[0151] & [0194]-[0198])
With respect to claim 6, John teaches the system of claim 5;
wherein the trait is one of picking-up the order and having the order delivered ([0149]-[0150] preference may be a preference of a location where the patient can pick up the order or delivery location so the order can be delivered)
With respect to claim 7, John teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the trait of the order is a price of the medical supply ([0152]-[0155] the trait of the order may also include various pre-negotiated rates or pricing requirements/factors of one or more payors or entities, see also [0160]-[0162] where price threshold may be used, see also [0241]-[0247] at least)
With respect to claim 8, John teaches the system of claim 7;
wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to one of the physician electronic device and the patient electronic device, a price of the order ([0025] “in response, receiving cost/pricing…associated with filling the prescription at one or more actual/dispensing pharmacies…can include a total price or cost payable by the payor…to each of the plurality of pharmacies…as well as a patient payable amount…can likewise deliver or direct the delivery to the patient device/computer…accordingly, the patient or customer may be presented with a listing of various dispensing pharmacy locations and associated cost/pricing…in order to facilitate a patient or customer’s decision as to which pharmacy to fill a prescription at”, [0156]-[0159])
With respect to claim 10, John, Siegel, Hassad, Gilman, and Lamoncha teach the system of claim 1. John does not appear to disclose,
wherein the trait of the order is a time the medical supply may be available to the patient
However, Siegel discloses
wherein the trait of the order is a time the medical supply may be available to the patient ([0028] & [0032] 7 [0052[ & [0067]-[0070] & [0083] time preference including time of availability to obtain the order from the pharmacy as well as time proximity constraint is used to filter the list of potential pharmacies)
Siegel suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the trait of the order is a time the medical supply may be available to the patient, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the customer is able to obtain the order in a timely fashion and in a time-frame of their liking ([0028] & [0032] 7 [0052[ & [0067]-[0070] & [0083])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of John to include wherein the trait of the order is a time the medical supply may be available to the patient, as taught by Siegel, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the customer is able to obtain the order in a timely fashion and in a time-frame of their liking 2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
With respect to claim 11, John teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein one of the physician and patient electronic device is further defined as personal electronic device ([0024]-[0025] “healthcare provider (e.g., a prescribing physician)…delivery an electronic prescription to a virtual pharmacy… via…website…patient or customer can likewise interact with a virtual pharmacy using a patient device…mobile phone application…patient device/computer can include a mobile smart phone…or similar personal communications device (e.g., a tablet computer… ”, [0031], [0060])
With respect to claim 12, John teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the processor is further configured to receive a notice of payment, representative of a payment received by the pharmacy from the patient, from the pharmacy electronic device ([0093]-[0097] receives payment notices from pharmacy device representative of payment received from the patient and the payment may be of various types and may be associated with various patient accounts in order to credit or debit the different types of accounts, [0081] various types of patient payments including cash, [0082] financial processing computer and virtual pharmacy module/computer and/or service provider computer may be the same computer/processor, see also [0065] & [0166]-[0174] and [0301]-[0317]))
With respect to claim 13, John teaches the system of claim 12;
wherein the notice of payment is credited to an account associated with a patient ([0093]-[0097] receives payment notices from pharmacy device representative of payment received from the patient and the payment may be of various types and may be associated with various patient accounts in order to credit or debit the patients respective account(s), see also [0166]-[0174] and [0301]-[0317]))
With respect to claims 9 and 20, John, Siegel, Hassad, Gilman, and Lamoncha teach the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15. John does not appear to disclose,
wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID;
transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID;
receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID;
confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID
However, Gilman discloses
wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID; ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215] token is transmitted to the user and may be sent to the user device)
transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID; ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215] pharmacy has an option to receive/scan the token and confirm the prescription ID associated with the order)
receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID; ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215] token is received from the pharmacy device to authenticate/verify the token data including the prescription ID)
confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215] the received token is authenticate/verify the token data includes a matching prescription ID)
Gilman suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a prescription ID associated with the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID; transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID; receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID; and confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so ([00051]-[0054] & [0101] & [0215])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of John in view of Siegel in view of Hassad to include wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a prescription ID associated with the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID; transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID; receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID; and confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID, as taught by Gilman, because doing so can provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would provide an efficient and convenient mechanism to ensure the correct patient is receiving the correct medication from the pharmacy and to ensure the person picking up the medication is actually authorized to do so.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Bhow (U.S. Patent No. 12,033,110 July 9, 2024) teaches an online platform that enables coordinating the selection of a pharmacy from a plurality of pharmacies to fill an order for a medical supply based on stock availability, order traits (e.g., location, price, etc.), and user preferences (e.g., selections from lists of potential pharmacies) and facilitation of the filling of the order by transmitting the order to the selected pharmacy.
Vinals (U.S. PG Pub No. 2015/0142463, May 21, 2015) teaches an online platform that enables coordinating the selection of a pharmacy from a plurality of pharmacies to fill an order for a medical supply based on stock availability, order traits (e.g., location, price, etc.), and user preferences (e.g., selections from lists of potential pharmacies) and facilitation of the filling of the order by transmitting the order to the selected pharmacy.
Laxer (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0362828, November 28, 2019) teaches an online platform that enables coordinating the selection of a pharmacy from a plurality of pharmacies to fill an order for a medical supply based on stock availability, order traits (e.g., location, price, etc.), and user preferences (e.g., selections from lists of potential pharmacies) and facilitation of the filling of the order by transmitting the order to the selected pharmacy.
Blackley et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2020/0135316, April 30, 2020) teaches generating a prescription ID associated with the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID; transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID; receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID; and confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID ([0017])
Eby et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,157,596, October 26, 2021) teaches generate a prescription ID associated with the order; transmit, to the patient electronic device, the prescription ID; transmit, to the pharmacy electronic device of the selected pharmacy, an option to confirm the prescription ID; receive, from the pharmacy electronic device, an input representative of the prescription ID; and confirm the input, representative of the prescription ID, matches the prescription ID
“New Mobile App from Reasor’s Provides Smart and Simple Ways to Manage Prescriptions on the Go” (published on July 16, 2018 at https://www.reasors.com/news/new-mobile-app-from-reasors-provides-smart-and-simple-ways-to-manage-prescriptions-on-the-go) teaches a mobile app that enables users to locate pharmacies that can fill their medicine order
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights