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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are drawn to a system for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11-13 and 15 are drawn to a method for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 16-18 and 20 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for medication inventory management, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A medication dispensing system, comprising:
a dispensing device connected to a network and associated with a respective care area of a healthcare facility, the dispensing device comprising a plurality of storage compartments including a (i) locking compartment that only contains one dose of one item and that requires a user to have authorization for access to the locking compartment and which limits access to only the one dose of the one item within the locking compartment and a (ii) controlled compartment secured with a lid and for which a user must provide appropriate authorization to access the controlled compartment;
a memory device storing user settings that include authorization and identification data for users, and physical storage limitations of the plurality of storage compartments of the dispensing device; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine, via the network, when the dispensing device is powered on and in use;
connect to and communicate with the dispensing device over the network when the dispensing device is determined to be powered on and in use;
monitor real-time usage of thousands of medical item types within care areas of the healthcare facility, including monitoring a usage of items, at the dispensing device via the network when the dispensing device is determined to be powered on and in use, of a medical item type of the thousands of medical item types;
determine, in real-time based on the monitoring, a minimum number of stock of items of the medical item of the thousands of medical item types to store in the dispensing device based on a daily item usage of respective items of the medical item type within the healthcare facility and a maximum time period for which to stock the medical item type;
determine a minimum time period for which to stock the respective items of the medical item type;
determine a care area average daily item usage for the medical item type based on at least the daily item usage and an average number of patients associated with the medical item type that are admitted to the respective care area during a second period of time; and
when the dispensing device is determined to be powered on and in use, via the network:
identify, based on the monitoring during a first period of time, a plurality of new orders of the medical item type for patients associated with the respective care area;
automatically determine, based on patient diagnoses for the respective care area and a number of the new orders during the first period of time, a number of new item units of the medical item type to add to the dispensing device;
automatically assign a respective compartment of the plurality of storage compartments for storage of at least a portion of the new item units to be added to the dispensing device, wherein the respective compartment comprises the locking compartment or the controlled compartment;
cause the determined number of new item units to be added to the dispensing device including to the respective compartment;
update the minimum number of stock of the medical item type based on the care area average daily item usage for the medical item type, the minimum time period for which to stock the medical item type, and the physical storage limitations of the plurality of storage compartments of the dispensing device;
generate a control signal to automatically adjust the stored minimum stock level of the medical item type in the memory to the updated minimum number of stock;
cause the dispensing device to electronically trigger a reorder of the medical item type for placement in the respective compartment of the plurality of storage compartments assigned to the medical item type when a current number of item units of the medical item type stored within the dispensing device falls below the stored minimum stock level;
output a notification signal to a display or to the dispensing device indicating the updated minimum stock level for the medical item type;
determining the user has authorization to access the respective compartment;
cause the dispensing device to provide access to the respective compartment for dispense an item unit of the reordered medical item type from the respective compartment to a user authorized to access the respective compartment based on the authorization and identification data.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite fundamental economic practices (i.e. hedging, insurance, mitigating risk – in this case, the steps of monitoring real-time usage of a large number of medical item types, determining a minimum number of stock of items of the medical item type to store and a maximum time period for which to store the medial item type, determining a minimum time period for which to stock the medical items, determining a care area average daily item usage for the medical item type, identifying new orders for the medical item during a first period of time, determining a number of the medical items to be added, assigning reordering the items, assigning a compartment for storage of the new items, causing the determined number to be added, updating the minimum number of stock, generating a control signal to adjust the stored minimum stock level, reordering the item type, outputting a notification indicating the updated minimum stock level, and determining that a user has authorization to access the respective compartment recite the fundamental economic practice of adequately stocking an inventory for an item based on item usage and reordering the item when necessary), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the steps of causing the determined number of the medical items to be reordered and added to the device by an authorized user by providing access to the authorized user recite following rules or instructions based on the determinations/data processing for managing inventory), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 11 and 16 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 11, and 16 is that Claim 11 recites a method and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, whereas Claim 1 recites a system.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 12, and 17 recite determining maximum number of stock of the items for different compartments of the dispensing device and assigning the new items to a second compartment, Claims 3, 13, and 18 recite sending a notification of the assignment, Claim 4 recites that the number of new item units to store is based on the determined minimum number of stock, Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite providing a compartment to store the minimum number of items, Claim 6 recites determining a minimum time period for storing the medical items, Claim 7 recites determining a length of stay for patients in the care area and updating the minimum number of items based on the length of stay, the number of patients, and a minimum time period, Claim 9 recites defining the minimum number of items based on user input and a threshold, and Claim 10 recites setting a par inventory level for the medical item, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Furthermore, specifically pertaining to dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20, Examiner notes that paragraphs [0020], [0027], and [0030] of the present Specification recite a “forward deployed inventory” (i.e. an inventory that is stored in the dispensing device), but there is no language in the Specification defining what “deploying a compartment” entails. Hence, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets “deploying a compartment” as equivalent to “providing a compartment” for storing the minimum number of stock items. Additionally, any limitations in dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 11, and 16.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors, the step of connecting and communicating with the device over the network, and the steps of causing the adding of a new item and the dispensing of a reordered item) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the one or more processors, the memory device, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0059]-[0064] and [0066] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of the dispensing device being used for dispensing of medical items amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the language defining the locking and controlled compartments and the step of causing the dispensing device to dispense the item, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 include other limitations, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the providing of a compartment recited in dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors, the step of connecting and communicating with the device over the network, and the steps of causing the adding of a new item and the dispensing of a reordered item), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0059]-[0064] and [0066] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the one or more processors, the memory device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives usage data, processes the usage data, and transmits a command to the dispensing device based on the processed usage data to the dispensing device over a network, e.g. see paragraph [0042] of the present Specification;
Recording a customer’s order, e.g. see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth – similarly, the current invention receives orders for the medical item, and determines a number of new items to add to the dispensing device based on the orders;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of authorization and identification data; and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing authorization and identification data, and retrieving the authorization and identification data from storage in order to cause new items to be added to the compartments and to cause the reordered items to be dispensed;
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the providing of a compartment recited in dependent Claims 5, 15, and 20), and/or do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the following reasons, Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and Examiner’s reasons for allowance if the claims were able to overcome the aforementioned grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and are reproduced from the Final Rejection mailed on October 17, 2024:
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 now incorporate the subject matter previously claimed in now-canceled Claim 8. For the reasons previously disclosed in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 17, 2024, the subject matter previously recited in Claim 8 is not taught by the previously cited references, and hence Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are not rejected as being anticipated by and/or obvious in view of the previously cited references. Specifically, Vahlberg teaches a medication dispenser that monitors usage of medications that may not have previously been stored in the dispenser and generating a restocking list to restock the medication dispensing device, Melander teaches determining a minimum number of stock of items based on daily usage and a minimum time period, and Beller teaches modifying the minimum number of stock of the item based on a determined length of stay, a number of admitted patients, and the minimum time period. However, none of Vahlberg, Melander, and Beller teach updating/changing the minimum number of stock based on the average daily item usage for a specific care area and a maximum time period for which to stock the item.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the present invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 as presently amended are not considered to be a non-novel and/or obvious variants of the inventions taught by the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed March 4, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it does not recite an abstract idea, specifically because it recites a technological improvement in machine operation and/or requires concrete data processing, e.g. see pgs. 12-13 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the claimed limitations are not considered to recite a mental process, and hence any arguments pertaining to the feasibility of operations being performed mentally are immaterial.
Additionally, the present claim limitations do not necessarily require any physical operations for a physical dispensing device. For example, Claim 1 recites that “the respective compartment comprises the locking compartment or the controlled compartment,” and “causing the dispensing device to provide access to the respective compartment for dispense an item unit…based on the user being authorized to access the respective compartment.” That is, Claim 1 recites that a compartment may be either of two types of compartments (i.e. locked and controlled), and recites enabling an authorized user to access the compartment, without reciting any details regarding what form this enabling of access actually comprises. For example, neither the Claims nor the Specification discloses the dispensing device automatically opening a lid or unlocking a compartment, and ejecting a cartridge from the compartment. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned language may include any form of enabling a human user to manually open a compartment in order to provide access to an item (e.g. transmitting a notification to a user indicating they are permitted to access a compartment), which does not require any type of activity or operation performed by the dispensing machine itself.
Additionally, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention improves utilization of items and inventory management utilizing the dispensing device, these improvements represent improvements to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicants further allege that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and represents significantly more than an abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 13-14 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Regarding a practical application, as stated above, the claimed limitations do not necessarily require any type of operations performed by the dispensing machine. Additionally, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed limitations generate a signal utilized by a machine, and/or produces a “tangible effect” in that it adjusts rules, the aforementioned effects are not technical improvements and do not provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). For example, the inventions of Enfish achieved the improvements of increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements for a database, McRO achieved the improvements of improving computer animation by enabling the automation of tasks that used to require subjective evaluations by human animators, and Thales achieved the improvements of a more accurate calculation of the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. In contrast, the claimed invention does not recite any improvements similar to the aforementioned technological improvements. At most, the claimed invention recites a specific set of instructions that configure how a dispensing device processes data, wherein the instructions improve the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activities in conjunction with the dispensing device, rather than any type of improvement to the dispensing device itself and/or any other type of technical improvement.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Savage (US 2012/0203376) – teaches a dispensing system including locking compartments. Further teaches tracking inventory levels and ordering items based on the tracked inventory levels. Also teaches tracking authorizations for access to specific compartments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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 H CHOI can be reached at (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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights