DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
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 amendment dated 10/30/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
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, see The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections of claims 1 – 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
The Analysis Provided by the Office Action is Insufficient
The Applicant states, “In contrast to this guidance, the Office Action highlights most of the claim elements as additional elements.” The Examiner notes that the claims has only 2 additional elements.
The Applicant states, “Namely, the Office Action is silent about how the claim limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application. Merely listing the claim elements and then making a subject matter eligibility conclusion is not a sufficient analysis.” The Examiner notes the Applicant’s opinion as to what is required. The Examiner follows the guidance of the MPEP. Therefore, all Applicant remarks as to what is required without citing to MPEP paragraphs are considered moot.
The Claims Recite a Practical Application Through an Improvement over Known Dose Verification Systems
The Applicant states, “In addition to above, Claims I and 13 of the Subject Application recite an improvement over prior art systems by allowing one dose verification user to take over control of a dose verification from another dose verification user.” The Applicant’s opinion as to what constitutes an “improvement” is noted. However, the Specification silent as to whether this feature is a technical or technological improvement to overcome a technical problem. The Specification does describes this feature as an application of technology to the abstract idea to achieve all the benefits of applying that abstract idea. Further arguments towards a “technical improvement” without proof are considered moot.
The Applicant states, “The above-technical improvement solves issues identified in paragraphs [0006] and [0235] of Applicant's specification.’ The Examiner notes that paragraph 6 begins with, “In a traditional approach to providing support users access to a local device a generic "administrator" login may be provided to all central support users for access to a local node for purposes of performing various functions related to the local node.” The Examiner agrees that paragraph 6 is relevant in showing that the invention is a method of organizing human activity. Similarly, paragraph 235 begins with, “Upon selection of the "take control" button, a user may obtain control over the verification of the dose from the other user.” Here again, the Examiner notes how the invention is directly related towards a method of organizing human activity.
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.
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