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 .
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.
Notice to Applicant
In the submission dated 7/6/2026, no submissions were made.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 12), machine (claims 13 – 20), which recite steps of
receive permission data that includes permission identification for verification users regarding permitted access to a healthcare information management station based on specified roles for the verification users, one of the specified roles corresponding to dose preparation verification; and
receive user authentication corresponding to a first verification user,
use the permission data to determine that the received user authentication corresponds to the dose preparation verification role,
after authenticating the first verification user, receive a request from the first verification user to take control of a dose verification of a medication dose prepared by an individual dose preparation station, the dose verification currently being performed by a second verification user at another station, and
permit the first verification user to complete the dose verification of the medication dose,
receive a message from the remote access station that is indicative of the request to take control of the dose verification,
revoke access to the dose verification for the second verification removing control of the dose verification from the other remote access terminal
when the message indicative of the request to take control of the dose verification is received,
start a timer related to the change in control, and
transmit information indicative of the timer to the remote access session.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. As stated in the PGPUB Specification paragraph 7:
[0007] In view of the foregoing, the present disclosure includes management of central support user permissions at a plurality of local nodes that are operative to execute client applications in a distributed healthcare information management system. Permission data regarding access, rights, privileges, or other relevant permissions of a support user may be established at a central server. The permission data may define an access level, specific activity permissions, or other authorizations to a support user. In turn, a support user may access the client application executing at a local node of the healthcare information management system to perform functions according to the permission data provided.
The invention is the application of an abstract idea to technology with all the improvements achieved by applying that abstract idea to technology. The invention is not a technological improvement of a problem related to technology. Further, the result of the instant application is information with a potential usage.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 20, reciting particular aspects of how authorization determination may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of terminal configured to execute amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receive information, receive user authorization amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of revoke access and enable amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 20, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea,). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 20; receive and display, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); receive, determine, receive, remove, enable e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements:
Work station (workstation) including a terminal – paragraphs 65, 170, 173, 198, 216
Server – paragraphs 35, 76, 94, figures 1 and 2
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 20, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Step 2A, Prong One – The Abstract Idea Characterization in the Office Action is at an Impermissibly High Level of Abstraction
The Applicant states, “The characterization of Claim 1 as being directed to "methods of organizing human activity" through permission management captures only the threshold authentication sub-steps of the claim and completely ignores at least three specific, technically significant claim limitations, which are discussed below.” The Applicant’s argument that the Examiner “ignored” the limitations differs from the Examiners stated rationale. The “technically significant claim limitations” are applications of technology to the abstract idea to obtain the benefits of applying the technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “Furthermore, Applicant notes that USPTO Example 42 illustrates that a claimed method comprising specific, defined technical steps, rather than a general principle or organizational concept, is not properly characterized as an abstract idea even when those steps are implemented on a computer.” The Examiner notes that Example 42 illustrated determining a technical improvement or technological improvement that is missing from the disclosed invention.
The Applicant states, “The claim is not organizing people. Claim I instead is directed to organizing machine states across a distributed network of specific hardware components.” The Examiner assumes that the Applicant knows that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
Step 2A. Prong Two– The Claims Integrate any Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
A. The Claims Improve Another Technology and Technical Field (MPEP § 2106.05(a))
The Applicant states, “Under the second prong, Claim I improves the technology of pharmaceutical dose preparation and verification, which is a specific, well-recognized technical field.” The Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s opinions. First, that claim 1 improves technology and second that “pharmaceutical dose preparation and verification” is a well-recognized technical field. However, the Applicant’s opinions are presented without proof.
B. The Office Action Erred in Classifying the Revocation and Notification Limitations as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g))
The Applicant states, “The revocation and notification operations of Claim 1 are not incidental to the abstract idea. The elements are instead the core technical operations that transform a static permission system into a dynamic, real-time control-transfer system.” The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s opinion. The Examiner’s guidance is understanding the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. The only place that “revoke” or “revocation” appears is within paragraph 234 as, “Finally the user may modify the control over the dose. In an embodiment, a control may be provided that allows a user to revoke the control over the dose from another user. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 19A, a user may take control of the dose being verified by the other user by selecting the "take control" button.” The Applicant’s opinions clash with the Specification.
C. The Claim's Specific Architecture Imposes a Meaningful Limit on any Abstract Idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The Applicant states, “Instead, the claims implement one specific technical solution to a specific technical problem. For at least these reasons, Claims 1 to 20 satisfy Prong Two of Step 2A and are directed to statutory subject matter.” However, the technical solution presented by the Specification is directed towards a human problem.
Step 2B. The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept Beyond an Abstract Idea
A. The Office Action's WURC Finding is Unsupported by Evidence and Fails the Berkheimer Standard
The Applicant states, “The Berkheimer Memo from the USPTO (Robert W. Bahr, Apr. 19, 2018) requires specific evidence prior art, specification admissions, or a court decision specifically recognizing the element as conventional to support a finding that a claim recites operations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional ("WURC"). The Office Action has provided none. For instance, no prior art was cited in the § 101 rejection. Additionally, no specification admission was identified as establishing that the control-transfer architecture is conventional.” Please see paragraph 13 above. This paragraph has existed in the Examiner’s rejections.
The Applicant states, “Applicant further notes that the Office Action identified only two additional elements in Claim 1, which include a workstation/terminal and a server.” Here, the Applicant contradicts the previous argument.
The Applicant further states, “By doing this, the Office Action improperly collapsed all functional claim steps (revocation, notification, timer, transmission) into the abstract idea. The analysis at page 5 of the Office Action listed only the workstation and server as additional elements. This is error.” The Examiner separates the Abstract idea from the additional elements. The additional elements are applied to the abstract idea. The Examiner’s process has been reviewed by many other besides the Applicant and has been shown to be sufficient. Besides the Applicant’s opinion, the Applicant provides no proof that the Examiner’s process is incorrect.
B. The Ordered Combination of Elements is not Conventional
The Applicant states, “MPEP § 2106.06 requires that, after individually assess additional elements, the examiner must separately determine whether the ordered combination of those elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and that analysis is independent of the element-by-element assessment.” Yet, the Applicant provides no Examples on how these steps are performed or the conclusions presented. The Examiner goes by the MPEP while the Applicant says that the Examiner is incorrect but then provides no guidance on what is correct.
The Applicant states, “The ordered combination of Claim 1 is not a predictable arrangement of conventional elements.” The discussion of ordered combination regards a technical improvement or an improvement of technology. As mentioned, these do not exist within the Specification and the Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chudy Patent No.: US 9,272,796 An automatic drug packaging machine and package-less verification system together with methods and apparatus.
Ducharme et al. Patent No.: US 9,495,393 A system for reviewing role definitions includes a database that stores a plurality of roles.
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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights