DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 have been examined.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 1-4 and 6-18 (e.g. claim 1: assessment, decision, action, multiple references to the processor, product or service and the at least one or more of a product and service orders, quantitatively incomplete, and informationally incomplete; claim 8: informationally incomplete, the act of order fulfillment, and said product or service; claim 5: aid data units; claim 11: said at least one or more of the product or service) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn from claims 1-4 and 6-18.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 11/10/2025, that amended claims 1 and 8 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1 (e.g. “the location of product or service”), claim 8 (e.g. quantitatively incomplete and said at least one or more of recording the information), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in:
Claim 1: the location of product or service.
Claim 8 recites: said at least one or more of recording the information.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite a location (e.g. removing “the”) and amending claim 8 to recite at least one or more of recording the information (e.g. removing “said”).
The term “and at least one or more of quantitatively incomplete” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quantitatively incomplete” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what quantitatively means. What is the scope? How is quantitatively measured? Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Examiner recommends amending claim 8 similar to claim 1 and remove the term “quantitatively.”
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on page 10-14, filed 11/10/2025 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a specific technical framework (the Assess-Decide-Act) to address a technical problem in healthcare such as inefficiencies, errors, delays, and fraud, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims amount to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions involving receiving an order, assessing and deciding the completeness of the order, receive fulfillment of the completed order, sending incomplete information to be completed, monitoring order fulfillment (e.g. timing and delivery location), and alerting other users to address order issues, and verifying user identity and the order fulfillment.
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), 2106.04(d)(I), and 2106.05(f).
A specific way of achieving a result such as a specific technical framework (the Assess-Decide-Act) to address problems in healthcare such as inefficiencies, errors, delays, and fraud is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. Therefore, although the specificity of the claim limitations are relevant, it is not a standalone consideration.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on page 14-18, filed 11/10/2025 that the claims are directed to a practical application because technical improvements of optimizing healthcare logistics which minimizes order fulfilment time, a decision tree model to automate error correction, expedites critical orders, and a blockchain system to ensure data integrity using specific technology such as a processor executing a software program, a user interface, and memory storage, Examine respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
It is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how minimizing order fulfilment time, performing error correction, expediting critical orders, and ensuring data integrity improves technology. The use of a computer to perform tasks in real-time which is faster than a person does not provide an improvement to technology. Minimizing order fulfilment time, performing error correction, expediting critical orders, and ensuring data integrity may provide a commercial improvement to order fulfillment of healthcare products but it does not appear to improve technology. The use of a decision tree model to automate error correction and blockchain to add hash to data units are recited, however they do not appear to provide any improvement to technology. The claims solve a commercial problem but the claims do not solve a problem rooted in technology. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely use a processor with a user interface and memory as tools to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on page 18-20, filed 11/10/2025 that the claims are directed to an inventive concept because the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional and the combination of additional elements to perform computations and improve order timing and processing is a specific technical enhancement , Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should carry over their identification of the additional element(s) and conclusions in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two. See MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are not analyzed as being well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The additional elements (e.g. computer processor, user interface, memory storage medium, and decision tree model) both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception because the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words apply it on a computer.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on pages 20-21, filed on 11/10/2025 that DeRosa-Grund does not teach the structured ADA cycle or patient-centric prioritization because this reference does not teach healthcare order fulfillment based on patient needs or resolving transaction disputes, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
DeRosa-Grund does teach healthcare order fulfillment based on patient needs because this reference teaches prioritizing pending transactions and completing dispute resolution for orders for medical testing of the user based on specific user selections for the order and enforcing smart contracts with a set of rules that the user has agreed upon already. DeRosa-Grund teaches healthcare order fulfillment also tracking delivery of medical testing, usage, and when a refill is due. De-Rosa Grund also teaches a dispute module that resolves transaction disputes. (DeRosa-Grund, [0122]; [0123]; [0053]; [0009]; [0103]; [0114]; [0149]).
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on pages 21, filed on 11/10/2025 that DeRosa-Grund does not teach selectable priority trigger point, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on pages 21-22, filed on 11/10/2025 that Winters does not teach healthcare logistics, error detection, or escalation process, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on pages 22-23, filed on 11/10/2025 that the combination of DeRosa-Grund’s transaction system with Winter’s delivery tracking does not address the specific problem of healthcare order inefficiencies and the combination of references does not teach ADA cycle tailored to healthcare logistics prioritizing patient critical orders or escalation of alerts and is non-obvious, and Winter’s prioritizes profit over patient care, teaching away from Applicant’s patient centric approach, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, DeRosa-Grund is tailored to the ADA cycle regarding healthcare logistics because this reference is relied upon for receiving, processing, and delivering medical orders for users based on user selections and smart contracts based on user specific rules and performing dispute resolution for failed transactions. Winters is not relied upon for teaching healthcare or prioritizing patient care over profit. Winters is relied upon to teach the inefficiencies regarding the delivery of the orders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the healthcare order fulfillment of DeRosa-Grund with determining order and delivery inefficiencies based on quantity, quality, time, location, and adjustments and alerting a sales person and manager as taught by Winters because the results of such a modification would be predictable.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, on pages 22, filed on 11/10/2025 that the combination of DeRosa-Grund and Winter does not teach blockchain for optimizing healthcare order fulfillment or prioritizing patient needs in dependent claims 2-7 and 9-18, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., order fulfillment or prioritizing patient needs) are not recited in the rejected dependent claim 15. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The only dependent claims that recite limitations related to blockchain are claims 5 and 15. Dependent claim 5 is cancelled rendering applicant’s arguments moot. Also, dependent claim 15 does recite basic blockchain functions (e.g. adding hash to data units) but it does not recite limitations related to order fulfillment or prioritizing patient needs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are 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.
The term “and at least one or more of quantitatively incomplete” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quantitatively incomplete” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what quantitatively means. What is the scope? How is quantitatively measured? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in:
Claim 1:
the location of product or service;
Claim 2:
the processor
Claim 8 recites:
said at least one or more of recording the information;
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 6-7 are directed to a system and claims 8-18 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the abstract idea includes:
receive an order …wherein the order includes at least one or more of a product and a service;
assess completeness of the order, the order containing information about said at least one or more of the product and the service ordered and quantity and quality by which it can be delivered, …distinguish between said product and said service ordered and associated administrative communications;
… record the information, send confirmation, send the order for fulfillment, and establish a repeat order queue wherein data is used in real-time for assessment, decision, and action;
…to optimize a healthcare logistical system through an assess- decide-act cycle…, wherein the assessment includes…to assess priority of said at least one or more the product and said at least one or more of the service ordered, the quantity and quality available, and the location of said at least one or more of the product or the service;
the assess-decide-act cycle further includes the decision that upon reaching a selectable priority bypass trigger point,… adapted to select the order for at least partial fulfillment by dynamically adjusting priority constraints to expedite processing of patient-critical orders,
the assess-decide-act cycle further includes the action … to send order fulfillment information and … to send incomplete information to an order source for completion;
…receive for fulfillment at least one or more of completed order information… and the order for said at least one or more of the product and the service still needed to fulfill the order;
…monitor said order fulfillment until fulfillment is completed using real-time data processing to track order status and detect delays;
…assess whether the order is fulfilled on time;
…, if fulfillment is at least one or more of late, reaches a selected threshold prior to lateness, is determined will be late, and at least one or more of incomplete in quantity, incomplete in information without a delivery location, adapted to alert at least one or more of a salesperson and a manager ꟷ configured to further escalate to further people until addressed; … error correction … wherein user errors are detected and communicate to people if guidelines are unmet;
…verify said order fulfillment order fulfillment using a blockchain system to add at least one hash to data units when data is received, modified, or created, wherein data units can be traced to the origin of the data and the data verified,… verify identities by at least one or more of at least one security code input, biometric input, and blockchain key input at least one or more of the order source, the product provider, the service provider, people responsible for fulfilling orders, and authority for designating an order as complete;
and …by which to assess the priority of said at least one or more of the product and the service and priority bypass triggers wherein user errors are detected if guidelines are unmet, the programmable guidelines defining constraints for a constraint satisfaction problem to ensure compliance with patient- centric requirements.
This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions involving receiving an order, assessing and deciding the completeness of the order, receive fulfillment of the completed order, sending incomplete information to be completed, monitoring order fulfillment (e.g. timing and delivery location), and alerting other users to address order issues, and verifying user identity and the order fulfillment. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A healthcare product and service ordering system comprising: at least one computer processor adapted to … via at least one user interface operable with at least one memory storage medium;… said at least one computer processor adapted to; … the said at least one computer processor programmed to…; a software program executed by said at least one computer processor…; the software program configured to …executed by said at least one computer processor,…; … said at least one processor adapted to…; the said at least one computer processor is adapted to…;…said at least one computer processor adapted to… and said at least one computer processor adapted to…; the at least one computer processor adapted to …from the software program…; said at least one computer processor adapted to …; said at least one computer processor adapted to…; said at least one computer processor,… using a decision tree model to automate … where the at least one computer processor is configured to include programmable guidelines …;… said at least one computer processor further adapted to… the at least one computer processor further configured to; and said at least one computer processor further adapted to have programmable guidelines… (Claim 1 );
wherein the processor can at least one or more of autonomously (claim 2);
the system further including at least one machine learning program (claim 4);
via at least one computer processor and user interface operable with at least one memory storage medium and software program; …from the software program…(Claim 8).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A healthcare product and service ordering system comprising: at least one computer processor adapted to … via at least one user interface operable with at least one memory storage medium;… said at least one computer processor adapted to; … the said at least one computer processor programmed to…; a software program executed by said at least one computer processor…; the software program configured to …executed by said at least one computer processor,…; … said at least one processor adapted to…; the said at least one computer processor is adapted to…;…said at least one computer processor adapted to… and said at least one computer processor adapted to…; the at least one computer processor adapted to …from the software program…; said at least one computer processor adapted to …; said at least one computer processor adapted to…; said at least one computer processor,… using a decision tree model to automate … where the at least one computer processor is configured to include programmable guidelines …;… said at least one computer processor further adapted to… the at least one computer processor further configured to; and said at least one computer processor further adapted to have programmable guidelines… (Claim 1 );
wherein the processor can at least one or more of autonomously (claim 2);
the system further including at least one machine learning program (claim 4);
via at least one computer processor and user interface operable with at least one memory storage medium and software program; …from the software program…(Claim 8).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeRosa-Grund et al. (US 20210350887 A1, hereinafter “DeRosa-Grund”) in view of Winters et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0172050 A1, hereinafter “Winters”) in further view of Perez et al. (US Pub. No. 20190122139 A1, hereinafter “Perez”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8
DeRosa-Grund discloses a healthcare product and service ordering system comprising:
at least one computer processor adapted to receive an order via at least one user interface operable with at least one memory storage medium wherein the order includes at least one or more of a product and a service (DeRosa-Grund, [0108]: receive transaction request; [0045]: user interface to receive request and memory; [0092]: product and services; [0149]: processor);
said at least one computer processor adapted to assess completeness of the order, the order containing information about said at least one or more of the product and the service ordered…, said the processor programmed to distinguish between said product and said service ordered and associated administrative communications; a software program executed by said at least one computer processor adapted to record the information, send confirmation, send the order for fulfillment, and establish a repeat order queue wherein data is used in real-time for assessment, decision, and action (DeRosa-Grund, [0098]: determine and post completed transaction; [0092]: product and services; [0056]: record, confirm, and share transaction; [0100]: send message to seller to deliver product to buyer; [0123]: refill; [0148]: real-time; [0149]: processor);
the software program configured to optimize a healthcare logistical system through an assess- decide-act cycle executed by said at least one computer processor, wherein the assessment includes said at least one computer processor adapted to assess priority of said at least one or more product and said at least one or more of the service ordered…;… patient-critical orders; (DeRosa-Grund, [0122]: medical testing; [0123]: automatically process order for delivery or service for medical testing; [0053]: prioritize pending and completed transactions over pending and complete disputes for transactions; [0009]: system that when executed by the server processor causes the server to receive, determine, and generate and post; [0114]: system and computer; [0149]: processor);
the assess- decide-act cycle further includes the action, said at least one computer processor adapted to send order fulfillment information and said at least one computer processor adapted to send incomplete information to an order source for completion (DeRosa-Grund, [0108]: transmits the pending transaction; Fig. 3, [0109]: when pending transaction object could not be completed send failed transaction to users; [0149]: processor);
said at least one computer processor adapted to receive for fulfillment at least one or more of completed order information from the software program and the order for said at least one or more of the product and the service still needed to fulfill the order; said at least one computer processor adapted to monitor said order fulfillment until fulfillment is completed using real-time data processing to track order status and detect delays; (DeRosa-Grund, [0107]: monitor transactions; [0099]: create completed transaction blocks and post if transaction is pending, initiated, complete, or failed; [0100]: completed transactions blocks are time-stamped, posted, ordered and validated in real-time and message seller to deliver order; [0123]: track delivery, usage, and refill of medical testing orders; [0105]: run transaction processing in real-time; [0149]: processor);
configured to further escalate to further people until addressed… to automate error correction where the at least one computer processor is configured to include programmable guidelines wherein user errors are detected and communicate to people if guidelines are unmet; (DeRosa-Grund, [0148]: alert user (e.g. person, business) for suspicious activity based on transaction; [0130]: warn/notify the user or permissioned parties; [0101]: if there is a dispute or error, the single transaction block having the error is able to be corrected by a new updated single transaction block added; [0103]: post pending disputes to all parties of transaction and adjudicate and determine disputes and resolution; [0104]: automatic dispute resolution and dispute resolution entered by administrator; [0105]: providing dispute resolution in order to correct errors and/or fraudulent charges);
said at least one computer processor further adapted to verify order fulfillment using a blockchain system to add at least one hash to data units when data is received, modified, or created, wherein data units can be traced to the origin of the data and the data verified (DeRosa-Grund, [0040]: hash of previous block; [0043]: hash of transaction; [0065]: input authentication hash; [0067]: verify authentication hash; [0094]: generate pending transaction and verify authentication hash matching stored authentication hash),
the at least one computer processor further configured to verify identities by at least one or more of at least one security code input, biometric input, and blockchain key input at least one or more of the order source, the product provider, the service provider, people responsible for fulfilling orders, and authority for designating an order as complete (DeRosa-Grund, [0138]: authenticate the identity of the user by determining if the stored biometric data of the user matches current measured biometric data);
and said at least one computer processor further adapted to have programmable guidelines by which to assess the priority of said at least one or more of the product and the service … wherein user errors are detected if guidelines are unmet, the programmable guidelines defining constraints for a constraint satisfaction problem to ensure compliance with patient- centric requirements (DeRosa-Grund, [0039]: verify and enforces performance of transaction between buyer/seller; [0100]: seller delivers order; [0122]: medical testing; [0123]: automatically process order for delivery or service; [0053]: prioritize pending and completed transactions over pending and complete disputes for transactions; [0039]: smart contracts each containing a set of rules under which the advertiser, the platform and the user have already agreed that when the rules are met, the agreement is automatically enforced; [0117]: medical; [0149]: processor).
DeRosa-Grund does not teach:
…and quantity and quality by which it can be delivered;
…the quantity and quality available, and the location of said at least one or more of the product or the service;
the assess-decide-act cycle further includes the decision that upon reaching a selectable priority bypass trigger point, said at least one computer processor adapted to select the order for at least partial fulfillment by dynamically adjusting priority constraints to expedite processing of … orders;
said at least one computer processor adapted to assess whether the order is fulfilled on time; said at least one computer processor, if fulfillment is at least one or more of late, reaches a selected threshold prior to lateness, is determined will be late, and at least one or more of incomplete in quantity, incomplete in information without a delivery location, adapted to alert at least one or more of a salesperson and a manager…;
…using a decision tree model to …
by which to assess … and priority bypass triggers.
However, Winters teaches:
…and quantity and quality by which it can be delivered; …the quantity and quality available, and the location of said at least one or more of the product or the service (Winters, [0031]: order information includes delivery time and delivery agent; [0036]: determining a delivery agent based on a rating and qualification of the delivery agent; [0129]: a customer may identify quantities of a good and time for delivery; [0155]: a quantity of delivery services and orders; [0099]: estimated delivery time based on quantity of deliveries; [0130]: gps coordinates of a plurality of goods may be used by a picking agent to more quickly locate goods);
the assess-decide-act cycle further includes the decision that upon reaching a selectable priority bypass trigger point, said at least one computer processor adapted to select the order for at least partial fulfillment by dynamically adjusting priority constraints to expedite processing of …orders (Winters, [0218]: select and report items that have something wrong with delivery; [0112]: determine if an entire order has been completed or if items are missing; [0301]: if order fails then an order without one or more missing items may be delivered; [0051]: adjust one or more parameters of an order such as delivery time and other parameters; [0055]: dynamically adjust delivery area and time; [0056]: adjust delivery area if merchant moves within delivery area of user; [0103]: adjust a delivery estimated time and/or cause some other action to be triggered; [0266]: high speed delivery options; [0267]: select high speed delivery option; [0268]: determine availability of high speed delivery option);
said at least one computer processor adapted to assess whether the order is fulfilled on time; said at least one computer processor, if fulfillment is at least one or more of late, reaches a selected threshold prior to lateness, is determined will be late, and at least one or more of incomplete in quantity, incomplete in information without a delivery location, adapted to alert at least one or more of a salesperson and a manager… (Winters, [0103]: track location and estimated delivery time to determine is delivery will be slow or fast and adjust delivery time or trigger action if delivery cannot be completed contact another agent to fulfill order; [0264]: time threshold for delivery; [0257]: delay order; [0050]: if no information is pulled call manager; [0053]: contact employee and manager; [0259]: delivery information not received earlier (e.g. address); [0227]: an address for a delivery; [0218]: report a problem with one or more items (e.g. an item is missing, that an item is broken, that a quantity is incorrect);
by which to assess… and priority bypass triggers (Winters, [0103]: condition information used to cause some action to be triggered; [0301]: To help alleviate some possible order failures, trigger to obtain a most up to date inventory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the healthcare order fulfillment of DeRosa-Grund with determining order and delivery inefficiencies based on quantity, quality, time, location, and adjustments and alerting a sales person and manager as taught by Winters because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, DeRosa-Grund would continue to teach order fulfillment except that now determining order and delivery inefficiencies and alerting a sales person and manager is taught according to the teachings of Winters in order to track delivery time and location of order. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Winters, [0103]).
However, Perez teaches:
…using a decision tree model to …(Perez, [0021]: training model used with machine learning applications with decision tree trained to try and fix mistakes; [0013]: Decision tree learning is one commonly used algorithm that uses decision trees to map observations, decisions, and outcomes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the automated error correction of DeRosa-Grund and Winters with a decision tree model as taught by Perez because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, DeRosa-Grund and Winters would continue to teach automated error correction except that now a decision tree model is taught according to the teachings of Perez in order to fix errors. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Perez, [0021]).
Regarding claim 2
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering system of claim 1, the system further including at least one guideline wherein the processor can at least one or more of autonomously, by permission, and on demand at least one or more of correct and initiate correcting reasons for failing to meet the at least one guideline (DeRosa-Grund, [0101]: correct error for transaction; [0102]: AI used to correct transactions; [0103]: resolve disputes).
Regarding claim 3
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering system of claim 1, the system further including at least one database adapted to collect at least one or more of data input, data process, data output, and corresponding movement of products and services (DeRosa-Grund, [0007]: database with transaction blocks; [0091]: product/service transaction blocks; [0033]: database stores data records; [0111]: database and blockchain).
Regarding claim 4
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering system of claim 3, the system further including at least one machine learning program operationally coupled to the at least one database adapted to at least one or more of improve order timing, order processing, and guidelines and thresholds in at least one or more of real operations and simulations (DeRosa-Grund, [0107]: machine learning monitor transactions to stop suspicious transactions, purchase process, and purchase module; [0092]: purchase module used to purchase products/services and reflect terms of smart contract; [0093]: purchase module generates and verify transactions; [0082]: machine learning apply rules from storage; [0006]: timestamp to maintain order of each transaction; [0007]: storage includes database).
Regarding claims 6 and 18
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering system of claim 1, the system further including at least one blockchain system adapted to add at least one hash to received, modified, and created documents (DeRosa-Grund, [0100]: blockchain capable of modifying block; [0043]: hash of transaction; [0065]: create authentication hash based on input data; [0067]: receive authentication hash).
Regarding claims 7 and 17
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering system of claim 1, the system further including adding at least one security code to authorize at least one or more of receiving, retrieving, modifying, and sending documents (DeRosa-Grund, [0063]: create username/password; [0064]: access and edit data in account via username/password; [0049]: update, create, add data in user account; [0131]: transmit data via user account;[0067]: login and retrieve; [0006]: data (e.g., document)).
Regarding claim 9
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 8, the method further including initiating order assessment from when the order is at least one or more of expected and placed (DeRosa-Grund, [0108]: receive transaction request; [0097]: receives these signed pending transaction objects and puts them in a queue for posting and sends them to the payment processing module for payment processing; [0098]: receives the signed pending transaction objects, the payment processing module processes the payment indicated in the smart contract).
Regarding claim 10
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 8, the method further including sending a receipt to the order source (DeRosa-Grund, [0098]: transfer payment to complete transaction; [0099]: completed transaction confirmation posted to buyer and seller).
Regarding claim 11
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 8, the method further including alerting at least one or more of a user and a manager if at least one guideline for use of said at least one or more of the product and the service is unmet (DeRosa-Grund, [0148]: alert user (e.g. person, business) for suspicious activity based on transaction; [0130]: warn/notify the user or permissioned parties).
Regarding claim 12
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 8, the method further including collecting data about at least one or more of data input, data processing, data output, and corresponding movement of products and services (DeRosa-Grund, [0144]: collect transaction data; [0116]: collect data and private personal information; [0098]: receive pending transaction; [0091]: input product/service information and generate smart contract; [0082]: original collection of data).
Regarding claim 13
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 12, the method further including sending at least a portion of collected data to at least one or more of product producers, service providers, doctors, patients, therapists, specialists, insurance providers, technologists, and regulators (DeRosa-Grund, [0144]: collect transaction data; [0116]: collect data and private personal information; [0082]: original collection of data; [0008]: businesses, third party, companies obtain data based on data privacy platform; [0123]: a desired facility, or a with a telemedicine provider, insurance; [0083]: medical offices; [0126]: sent data to medical/laboratory or point of care facility).
Regarding claim 14
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 13, the method further including the patients opting in to for at least a portion of where the collected data is sent (DeRosa-Grund, [0121]: user opt-in permission to share data with entity; [0008]: businesses, third party, companies obtain data based on data privacy platform).
Regarding claims 15
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 12, the method further including adding at least one hash to data units wherein said data units can be traced to origin of said data units and said data units verified (DeRosa-Grund, [0040]: hash of previous block; [0043]: hash of transaction; [0065]: input authentication hash; [0067]: verify authentication hash).
Regarding claim 16
The combination of DeRosa-Grund, Winters, and Perez teach the healthcare product and service ordering method of claim 8, the method further including verifying identities by at least one or more of at least one security code input, biometric input, and blockchain key input at least one or more of the order source, the product provider, the service provider, people responsible for fulfilling orders, and authority for designating said order as complete (DeRosa-Grund, [0064]: identify users via biometric data/password; [0067]: authentication hash to verify user logging in; [0069]: blockchain used to logon users and sign transactions to effectuate transactions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Brown (US Patent No. 9536049 B2) related to a conversational virtual assistant that aids patients in fulfilling their healthcare needs, Cella et al. (US Pub. No. 20220245574 A1) related to management of value chain network entities, including supply chain and demand management entities, and non-patent literature, "The Future of Healthcare Internet of Things: A Survey of Emerging Technologies," related to the impact of internet of thigs on the advancement of healthcare and medicine.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached on 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688