DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 7/22/2025 in which claims 1 , 4, 7, 17-18, 21, 24, and 28 have been amended, claims 2-3, 6, 9-16, 19-20, 23, and 26-27 have been canceled and new claims 29-36 have been added. Thus, the claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25, and 28-36 are pending in the application.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25, and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of judging information without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 17 as the representative claim that represent the invention described in independent claims 1 and 17-18.
Claim 17 is directed to an electronic device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 17 describes an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, such that the at least one processor can perform operations for judging information in a computer-implemented prescription auditing system, the operations comprising: acquiring prescription comment information, wherein the prescription comment information comprises: prescription information issued by a doctor and comment information given by a pharmacist based on the prescription information; performing feature extraction on the prescription information and the comment information, to generate a feature data set corresponding to the prescription comment information; and judging the feature data set based on a current auditing rule to obtain a comment result correspond to the prescription comment information, wherein the auditing rule is used for characterizing a corresponding relationship between the feature data set and the comment result, and the auditing rule is updated based on a training result of a classification decision model obtained by training through machine learning; wherein the classification decision model is obtained by training based on the following steps, comprising: acquiring a training sample set, wherein training samples in the training sample set comprise: various feature data sets extracted from different hospitals and comment results corresponding to the various feature data sets of different hospitals; and training to obtain the classification decision model using a machine learned method, using the various feature data sets of different hospitals comprised in the training samples in the training sample set as an input of a detection network, and using the comment results corresponding to the various feature data sets of different hospitals as a desired output of the detection network; wherein the auditing rule is updated based on a training result of a classification decision model obtained by training, comprising; judging whether the training of a classification decision model is completed; and updating the auditing rule based on an input parameter and an output parameter of the classification decision model, in response to the training of the classification decision model being completed. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of judging information which corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. The claim recites the additional elements of an electronic device, one processor, a memory and a computer-implemented prescription auditing system which do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of an electronic device, one processor, a memory and a computer-implemented prescription auditing system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an electronic device, one processor, a memory and a computer-implemented prescription auditing system are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an electronic device, one processor, a memory and a computer-implemented prescription auditing system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an electronic device, one processor, a memory are all recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 18 and hence the claims 1 and 18 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 17.
Dependent claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25, and 28-36 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 17-18, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 4-5, 7-8, 21-22, 24-25, and 28-36 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 21-22, 24-25, and 28-36 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous non-final office action dated 4/22/2025, Examiner inadvertently states that Applicant filed a communication dated 6/8/2023 in which claims 1-18 have been amended. However, no amendment to the claims were made.
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-28 in view of the argument/amendment.
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-28 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-28 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the operations of claim 17 are indeed all performed by computer. However, the claim, as a whole, is applied to a particular field of technology, where due to the individual limitations in the claim, and combinations thereof, provides a useful and tangible result, which is an improvement over the existing technology. The claim, as a whole and its individual limitations, is sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as required by Step 2A Prong 2 and additionally provides significantly more, thus also fulfilling the requirements of Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements of a computer merely applies the abstract idea without providing any technical improvement. The claim does not provide any technical solution to a technical problem and thus the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant states that these limitations provide more than insignificant extra-solution activity, and provide significantly more, as they are a realization of the system’s drawbacks and provide a specific way to update the audit rule. This provides a specific transformation of a rule which is applied to real-word data with likely life and death consequences.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that updating of a rule does not offer technical improvements or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The claimed invention does not provide an inventive concept. Updating the audit rule is merely an abstract concept and the additional elements are simply applying the abstract idea without transforming an abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights