DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to amendments filed on 3/16/2026. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/26 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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-19 and 21 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), Claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and a system (i.e., apparatus/machine); therefore, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), Claims 1 and 11 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating shared work request assignments by receiving a plurality of prescriptions to be filled; filtering, based on a series of conditions and corresponding parameters from the plurality of prescriptions, the plurality of prescriptions; generating, responsive to a prescription passing the series of conditions, a work request comprising work parameters for a prescription verification task for the prescription; and sending the work request; receiving, from a source pharmacy, a work request for a prescription verification task, wherein the prescription verification task is a prerequisite task for a production task at the source pharmacy; retrieving, responsive to the work request, at least one up-to- date rule set for assigning a shared work request to a processing pharmacy in a second physical location: accessing, based on the at least one up-to-date rule set, at least one decision table comprised of aggregate parameters related to operations at a plurality of geographically distributed pharmacies including the source pharmacy and the processing pharmacy; executing, using the work parameters and the at least one decision table, the at least one up-to-date rule set to assign the processing pharmacy for the shared work request; sending, to a processing pharmacy, the shared work request; receiving, at a processing pharmacy, a shared work request; generating, at the processing pharmacy, the prescription verification task from the shared work request, wherein display prescription verification data and a plurality of selectable disposition options for the prescription verification task; and sending, to a source pharmacy at the source pharmacy, a disposition of the prescription verification task, wherein the source pharmacy is configured to generate the production task in response to receiving the disposition of the prescription verification task; which include abstract idea of mental processes (observing and evaluating shared work request regarding prescription data and making judgement/opinion of prescription verification and proceeding tasks after verification); and certain methods of organizing human activities based on fundamental economic practice (managing verification and fulfillment of prescription orders); and commercial and legal interactions (managing/facilitation work requests (such as purchase/sales order to a retail location) – sales behavior, business relations) and based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following instructions/rules to assign work request for prescription verification and proceeding tasks after verification between different locations of a pharmacy company). Claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21 provides further details to the abstract idea of claim 1 and 11; therefore, these claims include mental processes and organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 1 and 11. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), while the claims 1-19 and 21 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as system comprising: a source pharmacy computing device at a source pharmacy in a first physical location, wherein the source pharmacy computing device is configured to, automatically (i.e., using a computer/processor), an enterprise computing device, network, rules database, a processing pharmacy computing device, a processing graphical user interface, a source pharmacy computing device, a production graphical user interface, a work task interface, a shared work dashboard, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the limitation or similar “the source pharmacy fills the prescription responsive to the disposition of the prescription verification task” is merely an insignificant extrasolution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), while the claims 1-19 and 21 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as system comprising: an enterprise computing device, network, rules database, a processing pharmacy computing device, a processing graphical user interface, a source pharmacy computing device, a production graphical user interface, a work task interface, a shared work dashboard, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the limitation or similar “the source pharmacy fills the prescription responsive to the disposition of the prescription verification task” is merely an insignificant extrasolution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and (an Official Notice is taken here) it is well-understood, routine and conventional in the pharmacy business.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-19 and 21 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are not enough to overcome all of the rejections.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of example 42 and Diehr decision/case. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes (observing and evaluating shared work request regarding prescription data and making judgement/opinion of prescription verification and proceeding tasks after verification); and certain methods of organizing human activities based on fundamental economic practice (managing verification and fulfillment of prescription orders); and commercial and legal interactions (managing/facilitation work requests (such as purchase/sales order to a retail location) – sales behavior, business relations) and based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following instructions/rules to assign work request for prescription verification and proceeding tasks after verification between different locations of a pharmacy company). The additional elements are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, the limitation or similar “the source pharmacy fills the prescription responsive to the disposition of the prescription verification task” is merely an insignificant extrasolution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and (an Official Notice is taken here) it is well-understood, routine and conventional in the pharmacy business.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes Berkelhamer et al (US 20110307270 A1) Charron (WO 02/15095 A1) Kusakabe (US 20070136376 A1) and Kharraz Tavakol (US 20150154528 A1). None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention; wherein the novelty is in combination of all limitations.
Additional relevant prior art not relied upon includes:
Simmons (US 20140278466 A1), regarding “pharmacy workflow”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights