Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 10/22/2025. Claims 1-6 and 19 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 7-18 stand withdrawn. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. The prior art rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to provisional US Application 62/854,596 is acknowledged. The claims are therefore given the effective priority date of 5/30/2019.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 19 are objected to for the following informality: “the method” should read “the computer-implemented method.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-5 and 19 are directed to a process, and claim 6 is directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 19 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as recited in MPEP 2106.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1 and 6 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
retrieving, using a central pharmacy order manager, from a retail pharmacy, first product data identifying one or more products for display on a veterinarian customer-facing display;
populating an order management storage, at a backend location, with the first product data identifying one or more products for display on the veterinarian customer-facing display, the backend location including the central pharmacy order manager and the first product data including, for each product identified in the first product data: product identifier, product name, product wholesale price;
transmitting, from the central pharmacy order manager, the first product data to a veterinarian;
permitting direct communication between the veterinarian and the retail pharmacy only via the central pharmacy order manager such that any communication between the veterinarian and the retail pharmacy is directed through the central pharmacy order manager;
upon receiving and order for products at the retail pharmacy system from the central pharmacy order management system, confirming that each product in the order is approved by matching a prescription with the order;
for each respective product identified in the first product data: creating, at the veterinarian, a respective product record at a veterinarian storage at the veterinarian, by mimicking the first product data of the order management storage, and wherein each respective product record in the veterinarian storage includes: a product retail price indicative of a price of the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing display, and a product offering flag indicative of whether the veterinarian intends to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing location;
displaying, at a veterinarian administrative display of the veterinarian, for each respective product record, a respective administrative product display item, the respective administrative product display item including: the product name, a product price field populated with the product retail price of the respective product record, and a product offering field associated with the product offering flag and indicative of whether the veterinarian intends to offer the product on the veterinarian customer-facing display to a particular class of customers to whom the one or more products would be displayed;
receiving, at the veterinarian administrative display, a user input at the product offering field of the respective administrative product display item;
receiving, at the retail pharmacy, a prescription associated with a purchaser, the prescription being transmitted by the veterinarian to the retail pharmacy via the central pharmacy order manager;
matching the prescription to the respective administrative product display item to approve a selection of a pharmaceutical product by the purchaser, the pharmaceutical product being associated with the respective administrative product display item;
determining whether the user input at the product offering field for the respective administrative product display item indicates user intent to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing display; and
in response to determining the user intends to forego offering the product on the veterinarian customer-facing display, updating the product offering flag in the respective product record to indicate that the veterinarian intends to forego offering the product on the veterinarian customer-facing display.
The above limitations recite the concept of catalog management. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
The method being computer-implemented
Computing systems
User interfaces
Databases
An API
Steps being autonomous
A system comprising one or more memory units each operable to store at least one program; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the one or more memory units, in which the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform steps
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-5 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
The method being computer-implemented
Computing systems
User interfaces
Databases
An API
Steps being autonomous
A system comprising one or more memory units each operable to store at least one program; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the one or more memory units, in which the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform steps
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-6 and 19 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds [e.g. 35 USC §101] as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1-6 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC §101 as set forth in this Office Action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1-6 and 19 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record is Sutter et al (US 20120203678 A1), hereinafter Sutter[1], Sutter et al (US 20120203671 A1), hereinafter Sutter[2], Sayed (US 20090327101 A1), and Reference U (NPL – see attached).
Sutter[1] teaches a master product database that is asynchronously and continuously updated and allows for vendors to determine the current pricing of items in the vendor database [0111], and a catalog display that includes product details to be presented to a client [0114]. The master database includes product information including wholesale price and SKU [0084], which is supplied to an end user, e.g. a customer or hospital [0114]. The veterinary hospital computer creates product records at the centrally-stored database specific to the veterinarian, including costs [0035].
Sutter[2] teaches a veterinary pharmaceutical catalog foe e-commerce [Abstract], including a similar hospital view item record that is stored in a central products dataset, and includes an “exclude” field to indicate if the veterinarian wants to offer the particular item for sale through their website [0026], as edited by the user through an interface [0086]. A hospital view interface will not include those items flagged to be excluded [0026], with pricing and other information available for those items which are not excluded.
Sayed teaches systems and methods for maintaining a website [Abstract], where affiliates may build a personalized version of the merchant’s website, by selecting a template [0073-0079], and selecting checkboxes/flags to indicate which items from a master inventory they wish to make available through their site [0052]. A customer may then visit the site through the affiliate and make purchases [0116].
Reference U discusses creation of an e-commerce website, including pricing and inventory/listing factors.
However, each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations of: permitting direct communication between the veterinarian computing device and the retail pharmacy system only via the central pharmacy order management system such that any communication between the veterinarian computing device and the retail pharmacy system is directed via an API through the central pharmacy order management system; upon receiving, via the API, an order for products at the retail pharmacy system from central pharmacy order management system, autonomously confirming that each product in the order is approved by matching a prescription with the order; for each respective product identified in the first product data: autonomously creating, at the veterinarian computing system, a respective product record at a veterinarian database at the veterinarian computing system, by mimicking the first product data of the order management database, and wherein each respective product record in the veterinarian database includes: a product retail price indicative of a price of the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing user interface, and a product offering flag indicative of whether the veterinarian intends to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing user interface; receiving, at the retail pharmacy system, a prescription associated with a purchaser, the prescription being electronically transmitted by the veterinarian computing device to the retail pharmacy system via the central pharmacy order management system; matching the prescription to the respective administrative product display item to approve a selection of a pharmaceutical product by the purchaser, the pharmaceutical product being associated with the respective administrative product display item.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of the cited references, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
The references, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable over prior art (though rejected under 35 USC §101) as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues “that the claims do not recite commercial interactions and/or managing of personal behavior, and are, therefore, not direct to an abstract idea.” Applicant states that “Examiner has not identified any recited claim limitation that falls within any of the abstract idea groupings,” and claims that the rejection “ignores the explicit recitation of computing systems and devices…for managing and updating a database, and for displaying a list…on a user-interface.” Applicant adds that the newly amended “autonomous confirmation of approval, and autonomous creating of product record is not merely a recitation of catalog management as asserted or merely accepting, comparing, and storing data as required by the enumerated category.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the steps of the claims falling within the abstract idea have been identified, except for the recitation of computer-related additional elements, such as steps being performed autonomously, which are examined under Prong 2. The above-identified limitations recite a concept of catalog management and, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. With reference to MPEP 2106, an abstract idea is not “required” to be “merely accepting, comparing, and storing data” as argued; in contrast, the pending claims recite a process for catalog management which amounts to an abstract idea under Prong 1.
Applicant further argues that claims are directed to “autonomously mirroring of databases in a system thereby improving computer functionality, in the form of, for example, more efficient computational calculations and reduced computational resources. See Specification at ¶¶ [0058].” Applicant asserts that “updates to databases in accordance with independent claim 1 are faster as compared to other configurations where the databases are not mirrored,” arguing that such “other configurations” would require “database schemas with unpopulated fields to map different attributes between the two databases and processes to match records and populate attributes between the two databases.” Applicant concludes that the claims are accordingly integrated into “a practical application of improvements to computer functionality, in the form of more efficient computational calculations and reduced computational resources.”
Examiner disagrees. Firstly, it is noted that [0058] does not discuss “mirroring” or any alleged efficiencies or improvements; nor does the Specification disclose or suggest any technological solution to the alleged problem as argued. The Specification & claims also do not recite a “mirroring of databases,” but merely recite that data from one database can be mimicked in another. Similarly, it is unclear how the alleged hypothetical “other configurations” for mirroring two databases would be more computationally-intensive or complicated than possible techniques for “autonomously creating… a respective product record at a veterinarian database …by mimicking the first product data of the order management database.” Rather, the pending claims recite computer-related additional elements at a high level of generality, with elements such as the steps being autonomous, storage means being databases, and data being displayed on a UI being invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)], creating only a general linking between the abstract idea and computer technology.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689