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 7/1/2026. Claims 1-6 and 19 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 7-18 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 19 have been amended. The claim objections have been resolved by amendment. Examiner recommends that withdrawn claims 7-18 be cancelled.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 6/8/2026 was received and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities: “upon receiving, at the retail pharmacy system, via the API, an order for products from central pharmacy order management system” should read “…from the central pharmacy order management system.”
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:
a veterinarian pharmacy transaction system, wherein the veterinarian pharmacy transaction system includes:
a central pharmacy order management system including an order management storage;
a veterinarian system including a veterinarian module, and a second veterinarian module and a customer module that are coupled to the veterinarian module, the veterinarian module including a veterinarian storage, and being directly communicable with the central pharmacy order management system; and
a retail pharmacy system coupled to the central pharmacy order management system and the veterinarian module,
a method comprising the steps of:
retrieving, by the central pharmacy order management system, from the retail pharmacy system, first product data identifying one or more products for display on a veterinarian customer-facing display of the customer module;
populating, by the central pharmacy order management system, the order management storage of the central pharmacy order management system with the first product data identifying one or more products for display on the veterinarian customer-facing display, 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 management system, the first product data to the veterinarian module;
permitting direct communication between the veterinarian module and the retail pharmacy system only via the central pharmacy order management system such that any communication between the veterinarian module and the retail pharmacy system is directed through the central pharmacy order management system;
upon receiving, at the retail pharmacy system, an order for products from central pharmacy order management system, the retail pharmacy 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 module, a respective product record in the veterinarian storage at the veterinarian module, by mimicking the first product data of the order management storage, 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 a veterinarian intends to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing location;
displaying, on a veterinarian administrative display of the second veterinarian module, 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 second veterinarian module, via the veterinarian administrative display, a veterinarian input at the product offering field of the respective administrative product display item;
receiving, by the retail pharmacy system, a prescription associated with a customer, the prescription being transmitted by the veterinarian module to the retail pharmacy system via the central pharmacy order manager;
matching, by the retail pharmacy system, the prescription to the respective administrative product display item to approve a selection of a pharmaceutical product by the customer, the pharmaceutical product being associated with the respective administrative product display item;
determining whether the veterinarian input at the product offering field for the respective administrative product display item indicates veterinarian intent to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing display; and
in response to determining the veterinarian 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
A system including a database
A system including a server, the server including a database
devices
elements being electrically coupled to each other
User interfaces
An API
Steps being autonomous
Systems that include 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 server and the retail pharmacy system only via the central pharmacy order management system such that any communication between the veterinarian server and the retail pharmacy system is directed via the API through the central pharmacy order management system; upon receiving, at the retail pharmacy system, via the API, an order for products from central pharmacy order management system, the retail pharmacy 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 server, a respective product record in the veterinarian database of the veterinarian server, by mimicking the first product data of the order management database, 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 a veterinarian intends to offer the respective product on the veterinarian customer-facing user interface; receiving, by the retail pharmacy system, a prescription associated with a customer, the prescription being electronically transmitted by the veterinarian server to the retail pharmacy system via the API and the central pharmacy order management system; matching, by the retail pharmacy system, the prescription to the respective administrative product display item to approve a selection of a pharmaceutical product by the customer, 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 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that “the claim does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as …commercial or legal interactions. Rather, the claim recites how data is exchanged between systems,” arguing that “the claim method [sic] defines specific methods for exchanging data among the recited systems when the veterinarian server is directly communicable with the central pharmacy order management system via the API.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the claims recite steps which amount to a concept for 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. In particular, except for the general linking to additional elements as examiner in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis, the argued operations for exchanging data between systems via a third system are part of the abstract idea for managing the operations and communications of a veterinarian’s catalog.
Applicant further argues that “even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate that idea into a practical application.” Applicant argues that “because the veterinarian server communicates with the retail pharmacy system through the central pharmacy order management system, the claim recites a particular technological arrangement for managing communications among multiple independent systems,” stating that “by requiring communications to occur through the central pharmacy order management system via the API, the claimed method eliminates the need for direct integration between the veterinarian server and the retail pharmacy system, provides a controlled communication pathway for data exchanges, and thereby improves interoperability and security among the participating systems.” Applicant makes reference to Eligibility Example 42.
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the operations for communication between the veterinarian, retail pharmacy, and central order management are part of the abstract idea itself; the restriction of communications via a middle-man (central order management) between a veterinarian and a retail pharmacy is thus rooted solely in the abstract idea, which cannot form the basis for a technological improvement to itself. At best, the alleged improvements to interoperability amount to a business improvement stemming from these abstract steps requiring a middle-man for communications. Applicant does not elaborate on the alleged improvements to security stemming from the argued limitations, nor is such an improvement alleged in the Specification. At best understood, an improvement to data security from using a middle-man to avoid connecting a veterinarian directly with a retail pharmacy would similarly stem solely from the abstract idea. Rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, the pending claims invoke the additional elements as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, providing only a general linking to generic computer technology [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Whereas Example 42 recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by performing real-time automated data standardization across disparate systems, the pending claims merely transfer data between system, with one central system serving as a middle-man between the two others. These claimed bureaucratic/organizational operations do not improve the functioning of a computer, but merely provides, at best, an improved abstract technique for a veterinarian and retail pharmacy to communicate by utilizing a middle-man.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5 ET.
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
Prosecution Insights