DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted January 2, 2026. Claims 1, 11, 12, 17, and 21 are amended. Claim 22 is cancelled. Claims 1 – 21 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 – 21 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 One
Claims 1 – 21 are drawn to a method, system (apparatus), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 21 recite identifying an event relating to resupply of one or more medical items for a patient, wherein the resupply requires approval from a physician, initiating resupply of the one or more medical items, based on receiving an indication of approval for the resupply from the physician, and wherein one or more of the medical items are used to treat the patient.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the “present discloses relate[s] to patient medical care, and more specifically, to improved resupply for medical items, and improved engagement with patients and care providers” (paragraph 1 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “a need for resupply for a patient [which] can be automatically identified” (paragraph 21 of the published specification. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “computer implemented method”, “automatically”, “control layer”, “electronic”, “wherein the electronic indication of approval is received from an electronic healthcare system for the physician based on an automatically generated request for approval sent to the electronic healthcare system for the physician using an application programming interface (API)”; “identifying the electronic healthcare system for the physician, from a plurality of electronic healthcare systems”, “determining whether the electronic healthcare system is compatible with the control layer”, “in response to determining that the electronic healthcare system for the physician is compatible with the control layer system, automatically generating and transmitting the request for approval to the electronic healthcare system”; “transmitting an electronic notification of the initiated fulfilled resupply to a first electronic system associated with the patient”, “wherein the first electronic system associated with the first patient is compatible with the electronic notification”, “determining that a second electronic healthcare system associated with the second event is not compatible with the control layer”, “automatically refraininq from transmittinq a second request for approval to the second electronic healthcare system in response to the determination that the second electronic healthcare system is not compatible with the control layer”, “determining that a second electronic system associated with the third patient is not compatible with the control layer”, “automatically refraininq from transmittinq an electronic notification to the second electronic system in response to the determination that the second electronic system is not compatible with the control layer”
Claim 2: “computer implemented method”, “electronic system”
Claim 3: “computer implemented method”, “a user interface on a computing device, and wherein the electronic system providing the request is an electronic healthcare system associated with the patient”
Claim 4: “computer implemented method”, “automatically generating the event relating to resupply of one or more medical items for the patient, without human intervention”
Claim 5: “computer implemented method”
Claim 6: “computer implemented method”, “based on receiving an indication of failure from a second electronic healthcare system associated with the second physician”, “transmitting a notification of the failure to a second electronic system associated with the second patient”
Claim 7: “computer implemented method”, “parsing a textual indication using natural language processing (NLP), wherein at least a portion of the notification of the failure is based on the determined cause for the failure”
Claim 8: “computer implemented method”, “identifying the electronic system associated with the patient, from among a plurality of potential electronic systems”, “determining that the electronic system associated with the patient is compatible with the electronic notification”, “determining that the electronic healthcare system for the physician is compatible with the API”
Claim 9: “computer implemented method”, “identifying the electronic system associated with the patient, from among the plurality of potential electronic systems”, “transmitting an electronic message to each of the plurality of potential electronic systems, the electronic message comprising an identifier for the patient”, “receiving a response from the electronic system associated with the patient indicating that the patient is associated with the electronic system”
Claim 10: “computer implemented method”, “transmitting an electronic message to the electronic system associated with the patient prompting the patient to initiate the resupply”
Claim 11: “computer-implemented method”, “automatically initiating resupply of the one or more medical items occurs without human intervention, and wherein transmitting the electronic notification of the initiated resupply to the electronic system associated with the patient occurs automatically without human intervention”
Claims 12 – 21 include “an apparatus comprising: a memory; and a hardware processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the hardware processor configured to perform operations” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations” including many of the same additional elements disclosed in claims 1 – 11.
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0038] FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram for an engagement controller 130 and a resupply engine 140 to interact with an automated resupply engine, according to one embodiment. The engagement controller 130 includes a processor 202, a memory 210, and network components 220. The memory 210 may take the form of any non-transitory computer readable medium. The processor 202 generally retrieves and executes programming instructions stored in the memory 210. The processor 202 is representative of a single central processing unit (CPU), multiple CPUs, a single CPU having multiple processing cores, graphics processing units (GPUs) having multiple execution paths, and the like.
[0040] The memory 210 generally includes program code for performing various functions related to use of the engagement controller 130. The program code is generally described as various functional "applications" or "modules" within the memory 210, although alternate implementations may have different functions and/or combinations of functions. Within the memory 210, the engagement service 212 facilitates patient and physician engagement for automated medical resupply (e.g., using the patient engagement layer 110 and physician engagement layer 120 illustrated in FIG. 1). This is discussed further, below, with regard to FIGS. 3-9.
[0041] The resupply engine 140 includes a processor 252, a memory 260, and network components 270. The memory 260 may take the form of any non-transitory computer readable medium. The processor 252 generally retrieves and executes programming instructions stored in the memory 260. The processor 252 is representative of a single central processing unit (CPU), multiple CPUs, a single CPU having multiple processing cores, graphics processing units (GPUs) having multiple execution paths, and the like.
[0042] The network components 270 include the components necessary for the resupply engine 140 to interface with a suitable communication network ( e.g., a communication network interconnecting various components of the computing environment 100 illustrated in FIG. 1, or interconnecting the computing environment 100 with other computing systems). For example, the network components 270 can include wired, WiFi, or cellular network interface components and associated software. Although the memory 260 is shown as a single entity, the memory 260 may include one or more memory devices having blocks of memory associated with physical addresses, such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, or other types of volatile and/or non-volatile memory.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 11, 13 – 16, and 18 - 20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claim(s) 1 - 4, 6, 8 - 9, and 11 - 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairley et al., herein after Fairley (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0069087 A1) in view of Nadelson (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0326584 A1) further in view of Cain et al., herein after Cain (U.S. Publication Number 2010/0161345 A1) were withdrawn in the Office Action mailed October 1, 2025.
The rejection of Claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairley et al., herein after Fairley (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0069087 A1) in view of Nadelson (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0326584 A1) and Cain et al., herein after Cain (U.S. Publication Number 2010/0161345 A1) further in view of Tran, herein after Tran (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0101367 A1) were withdrawn in the Office Action mailed October 1, 2025.
The rejection of Claim(s) 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairley et al., herein after Fairley (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0069087 A1) in view of Nadelson (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0326584 A1) and Cain et al., herein after Cain (U.S. Publication Number 2010/0161345 A1) further in view of Dhavle et al., herein after Dhalve (U.S. Publication Number 2013/0179177 A1) were withdrawn in the Office Action mailed October 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the claims submitted January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues the present claims, which relate to techniques for automated resupply of approval required substances, do not recite or relate to any method of organizing human activity. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that the PEG (Patent Eligibility Guidelines) of January 2019 recite that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of resupplying medical items for a patient, and improved engagement with patients and care providers. The present claims recite identifying an event relating to resupply of one or more medical items for a patient, wherein the resupply requires approval from a physician, initiating resupply of the one or more medical items, based on receiving an indication of approval for the resupply from the physician, and wherein one or more of the medical items are used to treat the patient. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues the amended claims recite clear technological improvements to existing technological systems. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; the technological limitations are used as a tool to improve the resupplying medical items for a patient, and improved engagement with patients and care providers. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/K.K.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights