DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 9/3/25. Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 4, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 & 5-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 15 and 18-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Independent claims 1 and 15 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 15 recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing controlled substance usage data, the method comprising: obtaining, by execution of one or more processors, a first set of entries each tracking usage and inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice, wherein each entry in the first set of entries includes a first plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the first plurality of attributes, a corresponding value, wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format; obtaining, from a practice information management system associated with the medical practice, a second set of entries each tracking the usage and inventory of the controlled substance at the medical practice, a second plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the second plurality of attributes, a corresponding value, wherein each entry in the first set of entries has a corresponding entry in the second set of entries, wherein the obtaining of the second set of entries comprises: causing, by invoking a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions of a data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to retrieve the second set of entries from the practice management system, causing, by invoking a second of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to standardize each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format using mapping data linking codes used in the second
set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format, and causing, by invoking a third of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to output the second set of entries; identifying one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein identifying the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm and a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a
patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the
first set of entries or the second set of entries; correcting, based on one or more rules, the identified one or more inconsistencies; generating a third set of entries incorporating the correction of the identified one or more inconsistencies into the first set of entries; and propagating the third set of entries to the practice information management system.
15. A system for managing controlled substance usage, comprising: a data aggregation server comprising one or more first processors and a first memory storing a first plurality of instructions; a platform server comprising one or more second processors and a second memory storing a second plurality of instructions; and a client device comprising one or more third processors and a third memory storing a plurality of third instructions and a first set of entries each tracking usage and inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice, wherein each entry in the first set of entries includes a first plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the first plurality of attributes, a corresponding value, wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format, wherein the first plurality of instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, causes the data aggregation server to: obtain, from a practice information management system associated with the medical practice and in response to an invoking of a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions by the platform server, a second set of entries, and standardize, in response to an invoking of a second of the plurality of API functions by the platform server, each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format using mapping data linking codes used in the second set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format, wherein the second plurality of instructions, when executed by the one or more second processors, causes the platform server to: retrieve the first set of entries from the client device, receive the second set of entries from the data aggregation server, identify one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein to identify the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm and a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a
name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the first set of
entries or the second set of entries, correct, based on one or more rules, the identified one or more inconsistencies, and generate a third set of entries incorporating the correction of the identified one or more inconsistencies into the first set of entries, and propagate the third set of entries to the practice information management system.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because obtaining a first set of entries and a second set of entries; identifying one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, and correcting, based on one or more rules, the identified one or more inconsistencies amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. The underlined limitations of retrieving and standardizing entries using mapping data and generating a third set of entries incorporating the correction of the identified one or more inconsistencies into the first set of entries constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because at the currently claimed high level of generality they amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The underlined limitation of determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm and a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry constitutes “mathematical concepts“ because the algorithms are mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more processors, one or more first processors, one or more second processors, one or more third processors, a first memory, a second memory, a third memory, application programming interface (API), an information management system, a client device, and servers used to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or from being certain methods of organizing human activity or from being mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes,” “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the one or more processors, one or more first processors, one or more second processors, one or more third processors, first memory, second memory, third memory, application programming interface (API), information management system, client device, and servers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of storing data, obtaining data, standardizing data, performing calculations, retrieving data, outputting data, receiving data, analyzing data, generating data, and propagating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2, 3, 5-14, 18-20 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and 15 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1 and 15. Therefore, claim(s) 2, 3, 5-14, 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas. Claims 2, 3, 5-14, 18-20 describe further limitations regarding retrieving data comprising inventory report data and one or more transaction codes, converting the data, determining whether entries match, cross-referencing the value, applying a fuzzy matching algorithm, applying scoring threshold, applying one or more rules, flagging the entry, correcting the entry, updating the system with the third set of entries, outputting entries and inconsistencies, and that the medical practice is a veterinary practice. These are all just further describing the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 15, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to one or more processors and memory storing instructions/entries, a server obtaining data, and a server retrieving/receiving/outputting/propagating data/entries, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the value of a corresponding one of the plurality of attributes of the second set of entries" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “a name of a controlled substance” to “a name of the controlled substance.“ Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutter et al. (US 2016/0246942 A1) in view of Reardon et al. (US 2005/0090425 A1), in view of Lilly et al. (US 2003/0093295 A1), in view of Yanowitz et al. (US 2019/0088354 A1), and further in view of Bonner et al. (US 2012/0209741 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Cutter discloses A computer-implemented method for managing controlled substance usage data, the method comprising (abstract of Cutter; monitoring medication intake activity comprising receiving patient data, receiving prescription data, receiving drug data, receiving risk element data and calculating, by a processor, a patient's risk level for abusing controlled substances based on the drug data, the prescription data, the risk element data, and the patient data):
obtaining, by execution of one or more processors, a first set of entries each tracking usage of a controlled substance, wherein each entry in the first set of entries includes a first plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the first plurality of attributes, a corresponding value, (para. 82-85 of Cutter; method 200 may also include receiving prescription data (step 220). Prescription data received corresponds to prescriptions taken by a patient and may include information such as a date prescribed, a name of the prescription, a type of prescription, a dosage, a frequency for taking the prescription, a prescribing physician and an intended length of use. Patient data 132 will be stored in an information database 130 (see FIG. 1). When a nurse or user logs into the information database 130, they will only be able to view the profiles of the patients that belong to the network(s) to which the nurse and/or user is assigned.);
obtaining, from a practice information management system associated with the medical practice, a second set of entries each tracking the usage of the controlled substance, wherein each entry includes a second plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the second plurality of attributes, a corresponding value, wherein each entry in the first set of entries has a corresponding entry in the second set of entries, (para. 81-86 and Figs. 1-3 of Cutter; Referring to FIG. 3, the bottom of the patient profile form 300 generally provides a Medications space 324 to enter any prescriptions that the patient is currently taking, which may include non-narcotics. To add a prescription, the medication name will be chosen from a tree form 638, as shown in FIG. 6, similar in functionality to the insurance provider tree 414. Administrators will have the ability to customize the medications tree 638 by adding or removing medications (discussed below). After selecting the medication from the medication tree 638, the user or nurse will then enter in the dosage 630 and the frequency 632 for the prescription. If it is a controlled substance and standard doses have been established in tree 638, the standard doses or strengths will automatically populate as options in the Strength box 634. In various embodiments, the frequency 632 for taking the prescription can be selected via the two drop-down lists shown in FIG. 36. In an exemplary embodiment, the options for the period will consist of 24, 48, and 72 hours.),
identifying one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries (para. 81 & 98 of Cutter; The plurality of computer-readable instructions, when executed by processor 110, enable processor 110 to receive a request to perform the installation of the medication monitoring software, install the medication monitoring software in response to the request to perform the installation, determine a risk level for the patient by performing a comparison between the patient's prescription data contained in information database 130 and the patient's medication data contained in information database 130, and display the risk level via an output device 150.);
correcting, based on one or more rules, the identified one or more inconsistencies (para. 98 & 128 of Cutter; Referring to the next activity, medication reconciliation 870 is a formal process for creating the most complete and accurate list possible of a patient's current medications and comparing the list to those in the patient record or medication orders. The medication reconciliations performed for a patient will be tracked in the medication reconciliation history form (see FIG. 19). The medication reconciliation history tracks the dates on which the counts were performed, the number of drugs that were counted, and the overall result of performing the counts. The result of a medication reconciliation is represented with one of three colors, wherein green indicates no concern, yellow indicates a potential concern and red indicates a major concern. Again, other indicators may be used.); and
generating a third set of entries incorporating the correction of the identified one or more inconsistencies into the first set of entries and propagating the third set of entries to the practice information management system (para. 87, 98-100, 123, and 128 of Cutter; The Medication Reconciliation Settings form 3800, shown in FIG. 38, allows an administrator to set scheduling protocol for performing medication reconciliations based on a patient's risk classification. While not shown in FIG. 38, in various embodiments, the administrator or use may also be able to customize the name of the Medication Reconciliation entries.).
Cutter does not expressly disclose that the first and second set of entries track inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice; wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format; wherein the obtaining of the second set of entries comprises: causing, by invoking a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions of a data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to retrieve the second set of entries from the practice management system, causing, by invoking a second of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to standardize each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format using mapping data linking codes used in the second set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format, and causing, by invoking a third of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to output the second set of entries; identifying one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein identifying the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm and a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the first set of entries or the second set of entries.
Reardon discloses first and second set of entries tracking inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice; wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format (para. 42, 46, 52, and 53 of Reardon; An inventory control process is illustrated in FIG. 6 beginning at 610. Each week, a responsible person at the central pharmacy, such as the director of the pharmacy transfers inventory for the week's shipments to a segregated warehouse location for production inventory. At 620, a purchase order is generated for the inventory transferred to the production location and is sent, such as by fax, to a controller, such as the controller of the company that obtained approval for distribution and use of the sensitive drug. At 630, the controller invoices the central pharmacy for the product moved to production. The process ends at 640. The database is likely stored in storage 140, and contains multiple fields of information as indicated at 700 in FIG. 7. The organization and groupings of the fields are shown in one format for convenience. It is recognized that many different organizations or schemas may be utilized. In one embodiment, the groups of fields comprise prescriber fields 710, patient fields 720, prescription fields 730 and insurance fields 740. For purposes of illustration, all the entries described with respect to the above processes are included in the fields. In further embodiments, no such groupings are made, and the data is organized in a different manner.).
Lilly discloses wherein the obtaining of the second set of entries comprises: causing, by invoking a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions of a data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to retrieve the second set of entries from the practice management system, causing, by invoking a second of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to standardize each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format, and causing, by invoking a third of the plurality of API functions of the data aggregation server, the data aggregation server to output the second set of entries (see Fig. 2, para. 50, 51, 60, 61, 64, & 67-71 of Lilly; a secure, private, independent, network-based, centralized method operable for tracking and managing prescriptive medication information in aggregate is provided which allows electronic querying and realtime notification of patients' prescriptive medication history at the time of prescriptive medication creation. The user may request a pharmaceutical information transaction as indicated at 134. Such transactions may be of various types and include searches, updates, selecting specific information, displaying information, and the like. The so-determined pharmaceutical information is available in the appropriate context via the secure applet, API, and/or browser as discussed hereinbefore in connection with the login as indicated at 126, 128, and 130. In this manner, current prescriptive medication information may be requested. The various programs discussed above and/or others may be used to select specific types of data for transfer as indicated at information access filter 136, and to send data either to or from the computer system of pharmaceutical information control organization 12, and change the format of the data as needed between that used by the computer software of pharmaceutical information control organization 12 and the user software.).
Yanowitz discloses identifying one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein identifying the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the first set of entries or the second set of entries (para. 93, 142, 153, 156, and 157 of Yanowitz; the verification system 402 can compare time entries to identify related events. For example, the verification system 402 can identify events that have one or more matching event parameters and that are closest in time as related events. Additional rules and fuzzy logic can be used to identify related events. For a particular event array, an entry may indicate that a 20 mL vial of Propofol was dispensed and a related entry from the administration system 408 can indicate that a 15 mL of Propofol was administered to a patient. Accordingly, the verification system 402 can determine that 5 mL of Propofol is missing. Because 5 mL of Propofol is unaccounted for, the verification system 402 does not close out those entries. Instead, the verification system 402 can determine that there is a discrepancy of 5 mL. However, if a subsequent entry is added to the event array that indicates that 5 mL of Propofol was discarded, then the verification system 402 can reconcile those entries. Comparing these entries and resolving any discrepancies can aid in preventing errors or abuse.); using mapping data linking codes used in the second set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format (Fig. 8, para. 115, 119, and 137 of Yanowitz; the verification system 402 identifies relevant portions of the events to be used for mapping between systems. For example, in some cases, the relevant portions can include one or more event parameters, such as a drug identifier, an action identifier, a timing identifier, a patient identifier, a provider identifier or a location identifier, or a combination thereof).
Cutter, Reardon, Lilly, and Yanowitz do not disclose determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry. However, a best match algorithm is old and well-known, as evidenced by Bonner (para. 285, 292, and 293 of Bonner; The item identification processor 300 attempts to determine a best match between the unknown item's parameter values and the database of (known) product parameters. The Merger employs a single-pass "best match" algorithm for assigning barcodes to an item at its scheduled output position (i.e., the Y belt position at which the Merger sends information for an item to the output subsystem for subsequent transmission to the POS). The best match algorithm for barcodes takes as input 1) a single item for which output is to be generated, 2) an item domain consisting of all items to be considered when identifying the best barcode-to-item match--the output item is also part of this domain, and 3) a barcode domain consisting of all barcodes available to be assigned to the output item.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Reardon, Lilly, Yanowitz, and Bonner within Cutter’s controlled substance monitoring system. The motivation for doing so would have been so that data is organized for investigating for potential abuse of drugs (para. 53 & 54 of Reardon), to detect red flags (para. 71 of Lilly), to identify related events and efficiently group, relate, and/or evaluate health care data such that discrepancies or inconsistencies in the data can be identified and assessed (para. 153 and 142 of Yanowitz), and to compute matching metrics and provide useful outputs (para. 293 of Bonner).
(B) Referring to claim 6, Cutter, Reardon, and Lilly do not expressly disclose wherein determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches the respective entry of the second set of entries comprises applying the fuzzy matching algorithm to the entry and the respective entry.
Yanowitz discloses wherein determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches the respective entry of the second set of entries comprises applying the fuzzy matching algorithm to the entry and the respective entry (para. 153 of Yanowitz).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Yanowitz within Cutter, Reardon, and Lilly. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify related events (para. 153 of Yanowitz).
(C) Referring to claim 11, Cutter discloses further comprising, updating the practice information management system with the third set of entries (para. 88 & 99 of Cutter).
(D) Referring to claim 12, Cutter discloses further comprising, outputting the generated third set of entries to a display of a device (para. 81 of Cutter).
(E) Referring to claim 13, Cutter discloses further comprising, outputting the identified one or more inconsistencies to the display (Fig. 1 and para. 98 & 99 of Cutter).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutter et al. (US 2016/0246942 A1) in view of Reardon et al. (US 2005/0090425 A1), in view of Lilly et al. (US 2003/0093295 A1), in view of Yanowitz et al. (US 2019/0088354 A1), in view of Bonner et al. (US 2012/0209741 A1), and further in view of Biles et al. (US 2018/0330060 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 2, Cutter discloses wherein obtaining, from the practice management system, the second set of entries further comprises: retrieving data providing controlled substance usage information at the medical practice from the practice information management system (para. 82 of Cutter).
Cutter, Reardon, Lilly, Yanowitz, and Bonner do not expressly disclose converting the data into the second set of entries, wherein the second set of entries is of the same format as the first set of entries.
Biles discloses converting the data into the second set of entries, wherein the second set of entries is of the same format as the first set of entries (para. 5, 34, and 54 of Biles).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned feature of Biles within Cutter, Reardon, Lilly, Yanowitz, and Bonner. The motivation for doing so would have been to properly store the data (para. 5 of Biles).
(B) Referring to claim 5, Cutter, Reardon, Lilly, Yanowitz, and Bonner do not expressly disclose wherein each entry of the first set of entries is determined based on cross-referencing the value of one of the plurality of attributes of the first set of entries with the value of a corresponding one of the plurality of attributes of the second set of entries.
Biles discloses wherein each entry of the first set of entries is determined based on cross-referencing the value of one of the plurality of attributes of the first set of entries with the value of a corresponding one of the plurality of attributes of the second set of entries (para. 54, 5, and 39 of Biles).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Biles within Cutter, Reardon, Lilly, Yanowitz, and Bonner. The motivation for doing so would have been to access any of the data and/or information regarding one or more patients from a single access point (para. 54 of Biles).
(C) Referring to claim 15, Cutter discloses A system for managing controlled substance usage, comprising (abstract and para. 81 of Cutter; monitoring medication intake activity comprising receiving patient data, receiving prescription data, receiving drug data, receiving risk element data and calculating, by a processor, a patient's risk level for abusing controlled substances based on the drug data, the prescription data, the risk element data, and the patient data):
one or more processors and a memory storing a plurality of third instructions and a first set of entries each tracking usage of a controlled substance, wherein each entry in the first set of entries includes a first plurality of attributes and, for each attribute of the first plurality of attributes, a corresponding value (Fig. 1, para. 78, 79, 81-85 of Cutter; method 200 may also include receiving prescription data (step 220). Prescription data received corresponds to prescriptions taken by a patient and may include information such as a date prescribed, a name of the prescription, a type of prescription, a dosage, a frequency for taking the prescription, a prescribing physician and an intended length of use. Patient data 132 will be stored in an information database 130 (see FIG. 1). When a nurse or user logs into the information database 130, they will only be able to view the profiles of the patients that belong to the network(s) to which the nurse and/or user is assigned.);
wherein the first plurality of instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors. causes the system to (para. 81 of Cutter):
obtain, from a practice information management system associated with the medical practice, a second set of entries (para. 82-85 of Cutter; method 200 may also include receiving prescription data (step 220). Prescription data received corresponds to prescriptions taken by a patient and may include information such as a date prescribed, a name of the prescription, a type of prescription, a dosage, a frequency for taking the prescription, a prescribing physician and an intended length of use. Patient data 132 will be stored in an information database 130 (see FIG. 1). When a nurse or user logs into the information database 130, they will only be able to view the profiles of the patients that belong to the network(s) to which the nurse and/or user is assigned.),
identify one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries (para. 81 & 98 of Cutter; The plurality of computer-readable instructions, when executed by processor 110, enable processor 110 to receive a request to perform the installation of the medication monitoring software, install the medication monitoring software in response to the request to perform the installation, determine a risk level for the patient by performing a comparison between the patient's prescription data contained in information database 130 and the patient's medication data contained in information database 130, and display the risk level via an output device 150.),
correct, based on one or more rules, the identified one or more inconsistencies (para. 98 & 128 of Cutter; Referring to the next activity, medication reconciliation 870 is a formal process for creating the most complete and accurate list possible of a patient's current medications and comparing the list to those in the patient record or medication orders. The medication reconciliations performed for a patient will be tracked in the medication reconciliation history form (see FIG. 19). The medication reconciliation history tracks the dates on which the counts were performed, the number of drugs that were counted, and the overall result of performing the counts. The result of a medication reconciliation is represented with one of three colors, wherein green indicates no concern, yellow indicates a potential concern and red indicates a major concern. Again, other indicators may be used.), and
generate a third set of entries incorporating the correction of the identified one or more inconsistencies into the first set of entries and propagate the third set of entries to the practice information management system (para. 87, 98-100, 123, and 128 of Cutter; The Medication Reconciliation Settings form 3800, shown in FIG. 38, allows an administrator to set scheduling protocol for performing medication reconciliations based on a patient's risk classification. While not shown in FIG. 38, in various embodiments, the administrator or use may also be able to customize the name of the Medication Reconciliation entries.).
Cutter does not expressly disclose that the first set of entries track inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice; wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format, that the system comprises a data aggregation server comprising one or more first processors and a first memory storing a first plurality of instructions; a platform server comprising one or more second processors and a second memory storing a second plurality of instructions; and a client device comprising one or more third processors and a third memory; in response to an invoking of a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions by the platform server, obtain a second set of entries, standardize, in response to an invoking of a second of the plurality of API functions by the platform server, each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format using mapping data linking codes used in the second set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format, wherein the second plurality of instructions, when executed by the one or more second processors, causes the platform server to: retrieve the first set of entries from the client device, receive the second set of entries from the data aggregation server; identify one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein to identify the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm and a best match algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the first set of entries or the second set of entries.
Reardon discloses that the first set of entries track inventory of a controlled substance at a medical practice; wherein each entry of the first set of entries is in a controlled substance usage log format (para. 42, 46, 52, and 53 of Reardon; An inventory control process is illustrated in FIG. 6 beginning at 610. Each week, a responsible person at the central pharmacy, such as the director of the pharmacy transfers inventory for the week's shipments to a segregated warehouse location for production inventory. At 620, a purchase order is generated for the inventory transferred to the production location and is sent, such as by fax, to a controller, such as the controller of the company that obtained approval for distribution and use of the sensitive drug. At 630, the controller invoices the central pharmacy for the product moved to production. The process ends at 640. The database is likely stored in storage 140, and contains multiple fields of information as indicated at 700 in FIG. 7. The organization and groupings of the fields are shown in one format for convenience. It is recognized that many different organizations or schemas may be utilized. In one embodiment, the groups of fields comprise prescriber fields 710, patient fields 720, prescription fields 730 and insurance fields 740. For purposes of illustration, all the entries described with respect to the above processes are included in the fields. In further embodiments, no such groupings are made, and the data is organized in a different manner.).
Lilly discloses in response to an invoking of a first of a plurality of application programming interface (API) functions by the platform server, obtain a second set of entries, standardize, in response to an invoking of a second of the plurality of API functions by the platform server, each of the second set of entries into the controlled substance usage log format (see Fig. 2, para. 50, 51, 60, 61, 64, & 67-71 of Lilly; a secure, private, independent, network-based, centralized method operable for tracking and managing prescriptive medication information in aggregate is provided which allows electronic querying and realtime notification of patients' prescriptive medication history at the time of prescriptive medication creation. The user may request a pharmaceutical information transaction as indicated at 134. Such transactions may be of various types and include searches, updates, selecting specific information, displaying information, and the like. The so-determined pharmaceutical information is available in the appropriate context via the secure applet, API, and/or browser as discussed hereinbefore in connection with the login as indicated at 126, 128, and 130. In this manner, current prescriptive medication information may be requested. The various programs discussed above and/or others may be used to select specific types of data for transfer as indicated at information access filter 136, and to send data either to or from the computer system of pharmaceutical information control organization 12, and change the format of the data as needed between that used by the computer software of pharmaceutical information control organization 12 and the user software.).
Yanowitz discloses identify one or more inconsistencies between the first set of entries and the second set of entries caused by input errors in either of the first set of entries or the second set of entries, wherein to identify the one or more inconsistencies comprises determining whether each entry of the first set of entries matches a respective entry of the second set of entries based on a fuzzy matching algorithm to the entry and the respective entry, and wherein the one or more inconsistencies comprises inconsistencies in one of a name of a patient, a name of a controlled substance, a quantity of the controlled substance administered to the patient, a name of an authorizing individual, a timestamp, and a missing entry in either the first set of entries or the second set of entries (para. 93, 142, 153, 156, and 157 of Yanowitz; the verification system 402 can compare time entries to identify related events. For example, the verification system 402 can identify events that have one or more matching event parameters and that are closest in time as related events. Additional rules and fuzzy logic can be used to identify related events. For a particular event array, an entry may indicate that a 20 mL vial of Propofol was dispensed and a related entry from the administration system 408 can indicate that a 15 mL of Propofol was administered to a patient. Accordingly, the verification system 402 can determine that 5 mL of Propofol is missing. Because 5 mL of Propofol is unaccounted for, the verification system 402 does not close out those entries. Instead, the verification system 402 can determine that there is a discrepancy of 5 mL. However, if a subsequent entry is added to the event array that indicates that 5 mL of Propofol was discarded, then the verification system 402 can reconcile those entries. Comparing these entries and resolving any discrepancies can aid in preventing errors or abuse.); and using mapping data linking codes used in the second set of entries to corresponding codes used in the controlled substance log format (Fig. 8, para. 115, 119, and 137 of Yanowitz; the verification system 402 identifies relevant portions of the events to be used for mapping between systems. For example, in some cases, the relevant portions can include one or more event parameters, such as a drug identifier, an action identifier, a timing identifier, a patient identifier, a provider identifier or a location identifier, or a combination thereo