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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 27-28 are new.
Claims 1-26 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 26), article of manufacture (claims 1-25 and 27-28). Accordingly, claims 1-28 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, 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. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). 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. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claims include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a server device to:
-receive, from a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices, prescription data for a first prescription to be filled, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location, wherein a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different that the first pharmacy, the second pharmacy being in a second geographic location different than the first geographic location, wherein the prescription data includes a promise time comprising a time at which the prescription is scheduled to be retrieved by a patient and prescription information to be validated by a pharmacist;
-in response to receiving the prescription data for the first prescription, determine, based on the promise time for the first prescription, a first position on a list of prescriptions for the first prescription, wherein the list of prescriptions comprises one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device and from one of the plurality of computing devices, and wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at a second computing device located at a different second pharmacy;
-place an indication of the first prescription in the first position on the list of prescriptions to create an updated list of prescriptions to be validated; and
-in response to creating the updated list, send the updated list of prescriptions to be validated to each computing device of the plurality of computing devices including the first computing device located at the first pharmacy and the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy.
Claim 12
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a first computing device to:
-receive, from a server device, a list of prescriptions comprising one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by at least a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device from one of a plurality of computing devices, wherein the plurality of computing devices includes the first computing device, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location, wherein a first prescription in the list of prescriptions was sent to the server device by a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, and wherein the second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different than the first geographic location and wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at the first computing device located at the different first pharmacy;
-output, for display on a display device operatively connected to the first computing device, at least a portion of the list of prescriptions in a first graphical user interface;
-receive an indication of user input selecting the first prescription from the list of prescriptions in the graphical user interface; and
-in response to receiving the indication of user input selecting the first prescription, output, for display on the display device operatively connected to the first computing device, prescription information to be validated for the first prescription in a second graphical user interface.
Claim 26
A method comprising:
-receiving, by a server device and from a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices, prescription data for a first prescription to be filled, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location, wherein a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different than the first pharmacy, the second pharmacy being in a second geographic location different than the first geographic location, wherein the prescription data includes a promise time comprising a time at which the prescription is scheduled to be retrieved by a patient and prescription information to be validated by a pharmacist;
-in response to receiving the prescription data for the first prescription, determining, by the server device and based on the promise time for the first prescription, a first position on a list of prescriptions for the first prescription, wherein the list of prescriptions comprises one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, and wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device and from one of the plurality of computing devices, and wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy;
-placing, by the server device, an indication of the first prescription in the first position on the list of prescriptions to create an updated list of prescriptions to be validated;
-in response to creating the updated list, sending, by the server device, the updated list of prescriptions to be validated to each computing device of the plurality of computing devices including the first computing device located at the first pharmacy and the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy;
-receiving, by a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices and from the server device, the updated list, wherein the second computing device is located at the second pharmacy in the second geographic location different than the first geographic location;
-outputting, by the second computing device and for display on a display device operatively connected to the second computing device, at least a portion of the updated list in a first graphical user interface;
-receiving, by the second computing device, an indication of user input selecting the first prescription from the list of prescriptions in the graphical user interface; and
-in response to receiving the indication of user input selecting the first prescription, outputting, by the second computing device and for display on the display device operatively connected to the second computing device, prescription information to be validated for the first prescription in a second graphical user interface.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because providing interactions between plurality of computing devices to provide prescriptions and associated promise times is same as managing interactions between people.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because analyzing a received prescription and creating and updating lists based on promise times can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), 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.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a server device to:
-receive, from a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), prescription data for a first prescription to be filled, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location, wherein a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different than the first geographic location in a second geographic location different than the first geographic location (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), wherein the prescription data includes a promise time comprising a time at which the prescription is scheduled to be retrieved by a patient and prescription information to be validated by a pharmacist;
-in response to receiving the prescription data for the first prescription, determine, based on the promise time for the first prescription, a first position on a list of prescriptions for the first prescription, wherein the list of prescriptions comprises one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, and wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device and from one of the plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 79-82), and wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
-place an indication of the first prescription in the first position on the list of prescriptions to create an updated list of prescriptions to be validated; and
-in response to creating the updated list, send the updated list of prescriptions to be validated to each computing device of the plurality of computing devices including the first computing device located at the first pharmacy and the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108).
Claim 12
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a first computing device to:
-receive, from a server device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 79-82), a list of prescriptions comprising one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by at least a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device from one of a plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), wherein the plurality of computing devices includes the first computing device, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), wherein a first prescription in the list of prescriptions was sent to the server device by a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), and wherein the second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different than the first pharmacy, the second pharmacy being in a second geographic location different than the first geographic location, and wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at the first computing device located at the different first pharmacy (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106);
-output, for display on a display device operatively connected to the first computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108), at least a portion of the list of prescriptions in a first graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108);
-receive an indication of user input selecting the first prescription from the list of prescriptions in the graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108); and
-in response to receiving the indication of user input selecting the first prescription, output, for display on the display device operatively connected to the first computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108), prescription information to be validated for the first prescription in a second graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108).
Claim 26
A method comprising:
-receiving, by a server device and from a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), prescription data for a first prescription to be filled, wherein the first computing device is located at a first pharmacy in a first geographic location, wherein a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices is located at a second pharmacy different than the first pharmacy, the second pharmacy being in a second geographic different than the first geographic location (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), wherein the prescription data includes a promise time comprising a time at which the prescription is scheduled to be retrieved by a patient and prescription information to be validated by a pharmacist;
-in response to receiving the prescription data for the first prescription, determining, by the server device and based on the promise time for the first prescription (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), a first position on a list of prescriptions for the first prescription, wherein the list of prescriptions comprises one or more prescriptions to be validated by a pharmacist, wherein the list of prescriptions is sorted by a respective promise time for each of the one or more prescriptions to be validated, and wherein each prescription in the one or more prescriptions to be validated was received by the server device and from one of the plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), wherein a second prescription in the list of prescriptions originated at the second computing device located at the different second pharmacy (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
-placing, by the server device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), an indication of the first prescription in the first position on the list of prescriptions to create an updated list of prescriptions to be validated;
-in response to creating the updated list, sending, by the server device, the updated list of prescriptions to be validated to each computing device of the plurality of computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 105, 108) including the first computing device located at the first pharmacy and the second computing device located at a different second pharmacy (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
-receiving, by a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices and from the server device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), the updated list, wherein the second computing device is located at the second pharmacy in the second geographic location different than the first geographic location (mere field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
-outputting, by the second computing device and for display on a display device operatively connected to the second computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), at least a portion of the updated list in a first graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 108);
-receiving, by the second computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 106), an indication of user input selecting the first prescription from the list of prescriptions in the graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 108); and
-in response to receiving the indication of user input selecting the first prescription, outputting, by the second computing device and for display on the display device operatively connected to the second computing device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 108), prescription information to be validated for the first prescription in a second graphical user interface (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 99, 108).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: The claim specifies using second computing device to receive validation and then updating the list and sending the list with a notification, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: The claim specifies sending a notification to a computing device, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4: The claim specifies second computing device receiving a hold indication and updating the list to be sent to computing devices with a notification, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies errors with prescriptions, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies using a computing device to receive and send information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7: The claim specifies priority adjustment indication, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8: The claim specifies prescription information, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9: The claim specifies second computing device receiving and sending, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10: The claim specifies first prescription, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11: The claim specifies receiving log in information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13: The claim specifies receiving an indication and sending to the server device the determination from the indication, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14: The claim specifies sending to server device and outputting on a display, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies receiving and outputting on a computing device, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16: The claim specifies errors, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 17: The claim specifies extracting information from a prescription, populating fields from the extracted information, detect an indication of second user input, and highlighting on a display, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18: The claim specifies user input on a computing device, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: The claim specifies receiving and outputting on a display device, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20: The claim specifies receiving a hold indication from a server device and outputting on a display device, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21: The claim specifies list of prescriptions by priority on graphical user interface, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22: The claim specifies priority as an indication, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 23: The claim specifies prescription information, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 24: The claim specifies prescription, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 25: The claim specifies receiving and sending log-in information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 27: The claim specifies maintaining network connections and transmit updated list, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 28: The claim specifies using a computing device to receive, generate and send information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 12, and 26 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.
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Claim 1
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receive prescription data from computing devices in separate location, send the updated list, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Claim 12
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receive a list of prescriptions to be validated, output list of prescriptions, output prescription information, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Claim 26
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving prescription data, sending an updated list, receiving the updated list, outputting updated list, receiving an indication on user input selecting a prescription, outputting on a display prescription information to be validated, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-20, 25, and 27-28, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, (receiving and sending), 3 (sending notification), 11 (receive log in information), 14 (display), 15 (receive and output on display), 17 (highlight fields on a display), 19, 20 (receive an indication and output on a display), 25 (receive log-in information and sending log-in information), 27 (transmit updated list), 28 (receive indication, send updated list), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 17 (populate data fields from extracted information), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 17 (extract information from prescription) e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-26
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that when claims are viewed as a whole, they recite a specific, technology-centric improvement to distributed pharmacy workflow and not mental steps or human organization. While claims require various server devices, computing devices and network, it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. Generic computer technology for gathering and processing information do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. Using a computer to gather, analyze, and transmit embodies the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform conventional computer functions. Applicant does not assert that there is any unconventional use of a computer, and the use of conventional computer components to perform conventional steps to implement an abstract idea has repeatedly been found to not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (Instructing one to “apply” an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.).
Applicant argues that the claims require automation of a promise-time-sorted prescription list and dynamic server-side list ordering based on that promise time, followed by broadcasting an updated list to all nodes. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems.
The present invention solves the problem associated with pharmacy systems experiencing bottlenecks due to uneven staffing and volume, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention remedies the problem by creating a unified, singular workflow with real-time synchronization and workload balancing. Examiner states that the alleged improvement that the Applicant touts does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in receiving and processing information for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. Examiner states that while the specification provides a workload balancing, it does not provide the improvement in the computing capabilities, but rather division of labor.
Applicant argues that computer operations improve distributed system performance and data verification. Applicant does not provide an objective evidence regarding the improvement and provides subjective opinion.
Applicant argues that the claims improve existing IT infrastructure. Applicant does not provide an objective evidence regarding the improvement and provides subjective opinion. Furthermore, the present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. Id. at 1256–57, 1259. The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability.
Applicant argues that the claims are tied to a particular machine integral to their performance: server device coordinating with client computing devices at different pharmacies. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems.
Applicant argues that the claimed system transforms raw prescription submissions into an updated, ordered, and synchronized verification queue that dictates downstream physical activities and quality assurance. The machine components do not impose any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea as they amount to applying the idea with a computer. The claim simply recites generic computers performing the generic computer functions and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner states that the limitations may qualify as "significantly more" include "effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing." Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article, a new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Mere manipulation of data has not been deemed a transformation.
Applicant argues that GUI highlighting mechanism improves verification process itself. Applicant does not provide objective evidence regarding technical improvement, therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant states that the claims are not well-understood, routine, nor conventional previously known to the healthcare process management industry. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently issued a precedential decision holding that the question of whether certain claim limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity raised a disputed factual issue, which precluded summary judgment that all of the claims at issue were not patent eligible. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The question of whether additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This is because a showing that additional elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or even that they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102, is not by itself sufficient to establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities or elements to those in the relevant field. See MPEP § 2106.05. As the Federal Circuit explained: "[w]hether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369. Examiner provides citations from the present specification regarding the evidence to demonstrate well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). The evidence the Examiner relied on in making the step 2 determination is statements made in Applicant’s Specification.
Applicant argues that claim 17 is directed to a specific improvement to user interface. Examiner states that the user interface is used in its generic function of displaying information and finds no specific improvement to the user interface.
While the claimed method purports to accelerate the process of prescription workflow, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). However, using a computer to perform a task “more quickly or more accurately” is not, in and of itself, a ticket into patent-eligible territory. (OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).) Additionally, although the claimed process of prescription checking may be done more quickly using computer components, Applicant’s arguments that the claimed process is more efficient are not persuasive because the claimed process does not lead to the increased efficiency, rather that is due to the use of generic computers. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (2016) (“While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself’); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”).
The use of the term “realtime” does not disqualify the limitation from being categorized as an abstract idea. Language such as concurrently, automatically, instantly, or simultaneously to describe the automation of a manual process is not enough to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Examiner also notes that language such as this is not restricted to computer processes, humans can automatically/instantly/simultaneously complete different tasks (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) stating that the mental processes may be completely by humans plural – not just a singular human mind).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhow – U.S. Patent No. 11,893,623 – Teaches a system for dynamically displaying pharmacy workflow.
Baum et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0398633 – Teaches a system for issuing and filling prescriptions for a patient.
Goodall et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2007/0088594 – Teaches a central system for multiple pharmacies to distribute the fulfillment of prescription orders.
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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on 469-295-9171. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686