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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on November 26th, 2025.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 1-11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to a method, system, and an apparatus respectively and therefore fall into one of the four statutory categories. Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-15 recite a method and system respectively and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
The substantially similar independent claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A prescription fulfillment method for providing an interactive digital personalized experience interface, the method comprising: receiving, from an order processing device, instructions to fulfill at least one prescription associated with a user;
controlling a loading device to load a prescription container into a puck;
controlling at least one dispensing device to fulfill the at least one prescription by dispensing at least one item into the prescription container,
wherein the at least one dispensing device includes at least one of an automated prescription pill dispenser, a unit of use dispenser, or both;
controlling a literature device providing prescription literature associated with the prescription container
in response to the dispensing device dispensing the at least one item into the prescription container and literature associated with the prescription container, generating information corresponding to the user;
receiving, responsive to fulfilling the at least one prescription, a prescription notification indicating information corresponding to the at least one prescription and the information corresponding to the user;
identifying, based on the prescription notification, at least one health condition of the user;
in response to the at least one health condition corresponding to at least one health condition of a plurality of predetermined health conditions, generating a message including instructions for downloading a user application for healthcare;
communicating, to a user account associated with the user, the message;
in response to an indication that the user initiated the user application, providing, at an application setup interface, a plurality of data gathering queries;
storing user responses to the data gathering queries;
generating, using the user responses, a data structure corresponding to the user;
generating, based on the data structure corresponding to the user, a personalized experience interface that includes a user avatar that models, based on at least the information corresponding to the user and the at least one prescription, a biological identity of the user;
and providing, at a display of a computing device associated with the user, the personalized experience interface, including, at least, the user avatar;
receiving, from the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface, a first set of user responses;
identifying, using the first set of user responses; a healthcare provider pool;
adjusting at least some of the data gathering queries based on the first set of user responses;
identifying, responsive to a second set of user responses corresponding to at least some of the adjusted data gathering queries and provided by the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface, a subset of healthcare providers of the healthcare provider pool that match with the user;
receiving, from the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface, feedback corresponding to at least one of at least one component of the personalized experience interface and an appointment with at least one healthcare provider of the subset of healthcare providers selected by the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface;
and refining, responsive to the feedback, at least some of the adjusted data gathering queries and the personalized experience interface.
The series of limitations described in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions, and/or a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions – in this case, the steps of receiving an order, controlling loading and dispensing devices, generating information corresponding to the user, providing the user with instructions, identifying the health condition of the user, and communicating with the user), e.g. see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea are deemed additional elements and will be further discussed in detail below. Furthermore, the abstract idea that is presented in Claim 1 is identical to Claims 16 and 20 because the claims recite substantially similar limitations.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-14 recite additional limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites the information corresponding to the prescription includes identification and dosing information, Claim 3 recites the user information includes statistical and contact information, Claim 4 recites the predetermined health conditions include behavioral, musculoskeletal, and at least one other health condition, Claim 5 recites what entails a behavioral health condition, Claim 6 recites what entails a musculoskeletal health condition, Claim 7 recites what entails the at least one other health condition, Claim 8 recites the user account is associated with certain accounts, Claim 9 recites the data gathering queries include questions about the mental or emotional state of the user, Claim 10 recites the interface includes personalized components, Claim 11 recites the dynamic selection component includes at least one general selection and one health condition specific component, Claim 13 recites accessing a three-dimensional environment, Claim 14 recites the use of a virtual healthcare provider office, virtual healthcare provider, and at least one other three-dimensional environment feature. Thus, limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, see MPEP 2106.04. Thus, dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are directed toward the same abstract idea as the independent claims that are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A analysis- prong two:
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined portions presented in prong one – in this case, the user application, personalized experience interface, data structure, avatar (included in the experience interface), loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 1, the pharmacy fulfillment device, processors, memory, personalized experience interface, the user application, data structure, avatar, loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 16, and the processors, memory, personalized experience interface, the user application, data structure, avatar, loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 20) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the computing device 108 may include a processor 130 configured to control the overall operation of computing device 108. The processor 130 may include any suitable processor, such as those described herein. The computing device 108 may also include a user input device 132 that is configured to receive input from a user of the computing device 108 and to communicate signals representing the input received from the user to the processor 130 (see Applicant’s spec, ¶ 0102). The systems and methods described herein may be configured to select, using the data structure corresponding to the user, at least one suggestive aspect of the personalized experience interface [0037]. Furthermore, the additional elements of the loading device, order processing device, and dispensing device of Claims 1, 16, and 20 are considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the loading device 208 may load prescription container into the puck by a robotic arm [0077]. The order processing device 114 may receive information regarding filling prescriptions and may direct an order component to one or more devices of the pharmacy fulfillment device [0054]. The automated dispensing device 214 may include one or more devices that dispense prescription drugs [0081].
Accordingly, the additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 10-11, 13, and 15 recite additional elements. Claim 10 recites a previously recited additional element of a personalized experience interface and a new additional element of a dynamic selection component and specifies the personalized experience interface includes a dynamic selection component. Claim 11 recites dynamic selection component of Claim 10 and specifies the component includes at least one general selection and one health condition specific component. Claim 13 recites the previously recited avatar and a new additional element of a metaverse and specifies providing access to a three-dimensional environmental feature at a metaverse. Claim 15 recites a new additional element of an artificially intelligent healthcare provider and a previously recited additional element of an avatar and specifies there is an avatar corresponding to a healthcare provider and an avatar corresponding to an artificially intelligent healthcare provider.
Step 2B Analysis:
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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the user application, personalized experience interface, data structure, avatar, loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 1, the pharmacy fulfillment device, processors, memory, personalized experience interface, the user application, data structure, avatar, loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 16, and the processors, memory, personalized experience interface, the user application, data structure, avatar, loading device, dispensing device, order processing device, automated prescription pill dispenser, unit of use dispenser, literature device, and computing device of Claim 20, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Furthermore, the additional elements of the loading device, order processing device, automated dispenser, unit or use dispenser, literature device, and dispensing device of Claims 1, 16, and 20 are considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more’ analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more’). For completeness, Examiner notes that the following additional elements are well understood, routine, conventional:
the loading device (see, e.g., US 2021/0166799 A1 to Yuyama et al., ¶ 0042, Fig. 13, and US 2013/0110282 to Omura et al., A1 ¶ 0018),
order processing device (US 2023/0268044 A1 to Bothra et al., ¶ 0048-51, and US 2017/0011285 A1 to Hoffman et al., ¶ 0026-27),
automated prescription pill dispenser (see, e.g., US 2012/0175380 A1 to Nishimura et al., ¶ 0019, and US 2019/0333313 A1 to Lu et al., ¶ 0005),
unit of use dispenser (US 2018/0232497 A1 to Hoffman et al., ¶ 0078, and US 2017/0065485 A1 to Trower et al., ¶ 0092),
literature device (see, e.g., US 2007/0164096 A1 to Banfield et al., ¶ 0032, and US 2012/0073241 A1 to Mahar, Claim 1).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, independent Claims 1, 16, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 14 do not recite any additional elements and serve to further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the information corresponding to the prescription includes identification and dosing information, Claim 3 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the user information includes statistical and contact information, Claim 4 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the predetermined health conditions include behavioral, musculoskeletal, and at least one other health condition, Claim 5 narrows the abstract idea by specifying what entails a behavioral health condition, Claim 6 narrows the abstract idea by specifying what entails a musculoskeletal health condition, Claim 7 narrows the abstract idea by specifying what entails the at least one other health condition, Claim 8 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the user account is associated with certain accounts, Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea by specifying the data gathering queries include questions about the mental or emotional state of the user, Claim 14 narrows the abstract idea by specifying what entails the three-dimensional environment.
Dependent Claims 10-11, 13, and 15 recite new additional elements. Claim 10 recites a previously recited additional element of a personalized experience interface and a new additional element of a dynamic selection component and specifies the personalized experience interface includes a dynamic selection component. Claim 11 recites dynamic selection component of Claim 10 and specifies the component includes at least one general selection and one health condition specific component. Claim 13 recites a new additional element of a metaverse and specifies providing access to a three-dimensional environmental feature at a metaverse. Claim 15 recites a new additional element of an artificially intelligent healthcare provider and a previously recited additional element of an avatar and specifies there is an avatar corresponding to a healthcare provider and an avatar corresponding to an artificially intelligent healthcare provider.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Thus, Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendell et al. (US 20230196471 A1) in view of Galambos et al. (US 20230169882 A1), Cha et al. (DE 102014100988 A1), Cedergreen et al. (US 20210374876 A1), and Hampden et al. (US 20210082549 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mendell discloses the following limitations:
A method for…receiving, responsive to fulfilling the at least one prescription, a prescription notification indicating information corresponding to the at least one prescription and information corresponding to the user; (Mendell discloses methods and apparatus for therapeutic, diagnostic and prescription management and overall healthcare management [0001]. An aim of the invention is to provide a qualified prescribing professional with a valuable tool that imposes no significant burdens of weight or volume on the user, that demands little of their time and yet can respond rapidly, delivering valuable drug and patient information to the user from remotely located, disparate sources [0282]. The customer can request information from the pharmacist. This information may include information about a particular drug the customer discovered to be an alternative to his current prescription, information about a side effect the customer is experiencing, or other information [0304]. Various types of prescription related data can include information about various medications obtained from a drug information database and/or historical patient information obtained from an insurance database [0326].)
identifying, based on the prescription notification, at least one health condition of the user; (Mendell discloses of scientific note is that the system is privy to and operates at the confluence of three powerful emergent data streams: … data on individual prescriber activity using skill and judgment to diagnose conditions or problems and make prescribing decisions selecting and applying therapeutic agents to diminish diagnosed conditions [0452].)
Mendell does not disclose the following limitations met by Cha:
in response to the at least one health condition corresponding to at least one health condition of a plurality of predetermined health conditions, generating a message including instructions for downloading a user application for healthcare; (Cha teaches a method of downloading an application, comprising the steps of: detecting one of a mobile device (100) a call originating in a called outgoing caller ID; Send a message to download an application to the mobile device (100) when the outgoing call is detected; and downloading the application from an application server (400), in which the application is stored, on the mobile device (100) in response to a user gesture related to the message (page 12, ¶ 0001). The service server 200 may match a specific phone number with a health care application for the mobile device to process the user's health information (p. 8, ¶ 0005). [T]he service server 200 may induce an application on the mobile device 100 and the application is associated with a health care device (e.g., a body composition analyzer, a body fat analyzer, a sphygmomanometer and a body weight scale) or ubiquitous health (U-health) based services (p. 7, ¶ 0011).)
communicating, to a user account associated with the user, the message; (Cha teaches the service server 200 directly receive an application type to download from the user when multiple applications are matched with a single telephone number or an application is unspecified. For example, the service server 200 provide the user with a list of downloadable applications in the form of a telephone conversation or message. Thus, the user can select a desired application type to download. The process for selecting the type of application to be downloaded may be performed before sending the message or after sending the message (page 3, ¶ 0011).)
Mendell and Cha do not disclose the following limitations met by Galambos:
in response to an indication that the user initiated the user application, providing, at an application setup interface, a plurality of data gathering queries; (Galambos teaches the user will be asked for their name, gender, date of birth and email address. The email address will serve as their username. The registration page will identify whether they come through from Self-Help or Help-Provider and populate any data that has already been captured e.g., area of interest, disorder selection [0369]. The system 10 can improve co-ordination, triage and assist the user to become aware of the treatment options based on the disorders and nature of symptoms they are suffering, assisting them in their discussions with help-providers to ask questions and personalize their management package [0643].)
storing user responses to the data gathering queries; (Galambos teaches the system is designed to provide medical condition diagnosis information that is gathered, stored, and distributed in the system database. More specifically, information regarding clinical/pathological differential analyses, key facts, clinical presentations, pathology features, imaging findings, anatomy information, medical references with abstracts, expert imaging center information, continuing medical education information, and related data is made available in electronic and printed forms via a general infrastructure of the system [0005].)
generating, using the user responses, a data structure corresponding to the user; (Galambos teaches the present disclosure can introduce innovative elements to improve care coordination and triage for use in large corporations and the health funder industry. 1. The capacity to develop an industry-specific version within PLUS services; 2. design and structure of the system 10 permits integration of infrastructural ingredients that enable the development of a cohesive, seamless purpose-specific mental health system; and 3. The categorization mental health system [0645-648]. The system of the present disclosure can generate and maintain a 'virtual therapeutic space' for clinicians to refer their patients to, which will 'hold,' 'contain,' support and guide them in between consults [0110]. The AI engine 100 is adapted to provide personalized e-learning based on the individual's profile and behavior-including VR/XR. The AI engine 100 is adapted to aid data-analysis of the user's choices made within the 3 services to enhance how they access and journey through the eLEARNING service, CONNECT and PLUS, to improve, refine and maximize their mental health literacy skills and strategies [0693].)
generating, based on the data structure corresponding to the user, a personalized experience interface… (Galambos teaches therapeutic ‘virtual space’ adapted to provide the full stakeholder spectrum of self-help, help-seeker and accredited help-providers to interact within to enhance clinical care (which includes specified limited interactions with external help-providers) that has purpose-built clinical care pathways guiding all the users toward interactions that will achieve the goals of enhancing mental health literacy developed from a synthesis of all the contemporary healthcare models of care, which create a ‘scaffolding’ to (which can retain an adequate and necessary degree of flexibility and choice that will ensure the users can personalize their experiences to refine the type of knowledge acquisition they need to improve their decision making and coping skillsets maturation and achieve optimal health outcomes) [0989].)
…that includes a user avatar that models, based on at least the information corresponding to the user and the at least one prescription, a biological identity of the user; (Galambos teaches the user is represented by an ‘alter ego’ in-theme avatar [0187, Fig. 18].)
and providing, at a display of a computing device associated with the user, the personalized experience interface, including, at least, the user avatar. (Galambos teaches the system 10 is adapted to connect to a user device 50 to deliver the digital mental health services 20 to users. The user device 50 comprising a processor 56 for processing data of the device and ensure quick response time. The user device 50 may have different human user interfaces, such as video camera 52, audio system 58, and I/O devices 53. The I/O device 53 may be a touch screen, or a display and a keypad [0106]. The Dashboard will be adapted to display a record of the training they have been recommended and the training they have done. The Dashboard will capture the following key analytics [0419]. Time spent by user navigating Unit/Subunit/Disorder, Completion of Units/Subunits/Disorders, Completion of specific quiz questions, Completion of quizzes, Access to posters (prints, downloads, emails, shares) … (¶ 0420-0429). This is interpreted as a personalized user interface. See also Fig. 6 and 18 which displays a personalized interface with a user’s avatar.)
from the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface, (Galambos teaches once a patient has identified themselves, they will be asked to select one of five “Areas of Mental Health Interest” and “Mental Health Disorders” (6 categories of mental disorder) from the interface of the system of the present disclosure [0356].)
refining… the personalized experience interface…(Galambos teaches the system further comprises an artificial intelligent (AI) engine for processing user feedback from the eLEARNING service and adjust an eLEARNING program based on the user feedback and the aggregated data of other users [0021].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized display based on data gathered from the user as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of providing specialist-grade virtual care which is personalized to the user’s specific needs (see Galambos, ¶ 0009-0012).
Mendell, Cha, and Galambos do not teach the following limitations met by Cedergreen:
receiving, from an order processing device, instructions to fulfill at least one prescription associated with a user; (Cedergreen teaches automatically sending instructions to direct a system or person to fill the corresponding prescription [0066]. The order processing device 602 may receive information about prescriptions being filled at a pharmacy in which the order processing device 602 is deployed. The order processing device 602 may track a prescription order as the order is fulfilled [0090].)
controlling a loading device to load a prescription container into a puck; (Cedergreen teaches directing a loading device to load one or more prescription containers into the pucks on the pallet based on which of the automated dispensing devices is determined to be responsible for filling the prescribed drug [0004].)
controlling at least one dispensing device to fulfill the at least one prescription by dispensing at least one item into the prescription container; (Cedergreen teaches automatically filling the prescription at the pharmacy after receipt of the adjudication response using an automated dispensing device dispensing the prescribed drug into one or more of the prescription containers [0005].)
wherein the at least one dispensing device includes at least one of an automated prescription pill dispenser, a unit or use dispenser, or both; (Cedergreen teaches the unit of use device 610 may temporarily store, monitor, label, and/or dispense unit of use products. In general, unit of use products are prescription drug products that may be delivered to a patient or member without being repackaged at the pharmacy. The automated dispensing device 612 may include one or more than one devices that dispense prescription drugs or pharmaceuticals into prescription containers such as prescription bottles and blister packs in accordance with one or multiple prescription orders [0099-100].)
controlling a literature device providing prescription literature associated with the prescription container, (Cedergreen teaches prescription materials are a type of order materials that include information regarding the prescription drug for inclusion with the fulfilled prescription. The prescription materials may include electronic information regarding drug interaction warnings, recommended usage, possible side effects, etc. for printing and inclusion with the fulfilled prescription for shipping [0110]. The loading device 606 may also print a label which is appropriate for a container that is to be loaded onto the pallet, and apply the label to the container [0097]. It would have been an obvious substitution for the loading device to also print the prescription materials in addition to the labels as the prescription literature.)
in response to the dispensing device dispensing the at least one item into the prescription’s container and literature associated with the prescription container, generating information corresponding to the user; (Cedergreen teaches the pharmacy benefit manager device 108 may be generally capable of analyzing claim adjudication data associated with members to identify one or more prescribed drugs associated with the member [0029]. When the member attempts to fill a prescription at a pharmacy, the pharmacy may transmit claims adjudication data (e.g., information that may be used as part of the claims adjudication process) to the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] [0049]. Prescription materials are a type of order materials that include information regarding the prescription drug for inclusion with the fulfilled prescription. The prescription materials may include electronic information regarding drug interaction warnings, recommended usage, possible side effects, etc. for printing and inclusion with the fulfilled prescription for shipping [0110]. )
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate the use of an order processing, dispensing, literature, and loading device for preparing the prescriptions as taught by Cedergreen. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of automating the prescription fulfillment process and improving efficiency (see Cedergreen, ¶ 0004).
Mendell, Cha, Galambos, and Cedergreen do not teach the following limitations met by Hampden:
receiving, from the user …a first set of user responses; (Hampden teaches in step 320, the server 50 receives from a consumer device 10 associated with a consumer, a first answer to a first displayed question [0040].)
identifying, using the first set of user responses, a healthcare provider pool; (Hampden teaches the healthcare server causes the consumer device to display a sequence of context-based questions formulated to gather only minimal and necessary information. Upon receiving the consumer responses, the healthcare server computes a ranked list of suggested healthcare providers. The server causes the consumer device to display the ranked list of suggested healthcare providers, which includes a plurality of items representing a summary of information associated with a healthcare provider. Based on consumer input, the server causes the consumer device to progressively display additional detailed information associated with a selected healthcare provider [0028].)
adjusting at least some of the data gathering queries based on the first set of user responses; (Hampden teaches the server 50 receives from a healthcare consumer device 10, a second answer to a second displayed question. The server 50 formulates the second question based on the first answer and the healthcare provider information 62 [0044].)
identifying, responsive to a second set of user responses corresponding to at least some of the adjusted data gathering queries and provided by the user…, a subset of healthcare providers of the healthcare provider pool that match with the user; (Hampden teaches the server formulates the second question based on the first answer, the healthcare provider information 62, and the consumer information 64. For example, when the server 50 receives pregnancy as the first answer, the healthcare provider information indicates that a C-section is a procedure performed in pregnancy, and the consumer information 64 indicates that the consumer is not interested in having a C-section performed, the server 50 formulates the second question to ask the consumer about other information, such as whether the consumer has a preference for a gender of the healthcare provider. In step 340, the server 50 calculates a ranked list of suggested healthcare providers, 1300 in FIG. 13, based on the answers the server 50 received from the healthcare consumer device 10, and based on the healthcare provider information. For example, the ranked list of suggested healthcare providers 1300 contains healthcare providers that accept healthcare consumer health insurance [0044-46, Fig. 3].)
receiving, from the user… feedback corresponding to at least one of at least one component of the personalized experience interface and an appointment with at least one healthcare provider of the subset of healthcare providers selected by the user using the user avatar at the personalized experience interface; (Hampden teaches FIG. 18 is a second information tier, according to one embodiment. In this embodiment, the second information tier 67, comprises a display element 1800 configured to schedule an appointment between the healthcare consumer and the healthcare provider of choice [0066].)
and refining, responsive to the feedback, at least some of the adjusted data gathering queries. (Hampden teaches the server 50 formulates the second question based on the first answer and the healthcare provider information 62. For example, when the server 50 receives pregnancy as the first answer, and the healthcare provider information indicates that a C-section is a procedure performed in pregnancy, the server 50 formulates the second question to ask the consumer if the consumer is interested in having a C-section performed [0044]. The Examiner interprets the user’s answer to the question as feedback and the determination of the second question based on the response being a refinement of the query.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate querying the user, adjusting questions, and determining a healthcare provider pool as taught by Hampden. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing a high quality match of providers to consumers (see Hampden, ¶ 0003).
Claim 16 recites limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1 and are taught by Mendell, Cha, Galambos, and Cedergreen above; thus, the same rejection applies. Mendell further discloses the following:
a system…a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Mendell discloses embodiments are directed to a computer implemented method and system for integrating healthcare related events and services for a customer having insurance coverage providing a link to a customer [0011]. FIG. 16 is a schematic showing structural elements including the network, platform, processor, and other devices [0034]. These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means that implement the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks [0182].)
Claim 20 recites limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1 and taught by Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden above; thus, the same rejection applies. Mendell further discloses the following:
an apparatus… one or more processors; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to, respectively or collectively (Mendell discloses some embodiments relate to computer implemented methods and apparatus for integrating healthcare related events and services for a customer having insurance coverage provider via a web-based platform (abstract). These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means that implement the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks [0182]. Embodiments of the system may be implemented in various operating environments that include personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, programmable consumer electronics, digital cameras, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and so on [0324].)
Regarding Claim 2, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell further recites the following:
wherein the information corresponding to the at least one prescription includes at least prescription identification information and dosing information. (Mendell discloses the prescription orders and the prescription data may be used to determine a combined dosing regimen that has the instructions for taking the individual medications [0390].)
Regarding Claim 3, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell further recites the following:
wherein the information corresponding to the user includes at least user statistical information and user contact information. (Mendell discloses the present platform seeks to streamline the healthcare process by: (1) Maximizing commercialization by forecasting market size, competitive landscape, and potential ROI; (2) Utilizing statistics to model the number of cases of a disease are present in a particular patient population at any given time; (3) Identifying the physical, biological, social, environmental, cultural, and behavioral factors that influence health; (4) Profiling patients to understand their lives, attitudes, and behavioral factors that influence their health and conditions; (5) Creating a treatment journey map to understand the composition of care events and touchpoints toward a successful diagnosis and treatment Plan… [0010]. Using the GUI information such as a patient's name, birth date, address, telephone number and other identifying information is entered with claim-specific information, such as drug prescription or medical service or procedure [0194].)
Regarding Claim 8, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell further discloses:
wherein the user account associated with the user includes at least one of an electronic mail account, a pharmacy account, a health insurance account, and at least one other user account. (Mendell discloses the program stores and updates data from multiple sources and supports current postal addresses and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers for patients, as well as date of birth, deceased status, gender, demographic and geographic information, medical conditions, drug allergies, HIPAA privacy consent and authorizations [0284]. The pharmacy management system is a type of a fill and bill system and has the ability to interface all new and changed customer accounts, customer prescriptions, responses to customer requests, profile information, changes to the pharmacists, changes to web site content, etc. [0287]. The pharmacy contacts the administrator and an account is established [0288]. As noted, each customer receives a username and a password for logging onto the web site and establishes a profile. The customer can maintain their account, request/order recommended products, order refills, check refill status, view profile information, and request information and view responses [0289]. The pharmacist verifies all information when the customer comes to the pharmacy to pick up a refill to make sure that the customer still has the same insurance provider, physician, address, phone number, etc. The customer can update this information using the web site… [0358].)
Regarding Claim 9, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell, Cha, Cedergreen, and Hampden does not teach the following limitations met by Galambos:
wherein the data gathering queries include at least one questions corresponding to, at least, a mental or emotional state of the user. (Galambos teaches either at the end of a Subunit (Plan A) or embedded within the content of the Subunit (latest plan—Plan B; probably will be compared doing both for beta-testing) will be 3 quizzes: (1) Multiple Choice Questions (probably not with plan B) … (2) Line-matching Questions and Answers… (3) Self-Reflective Questions (these will remain at the end of the Subunit even in Plan B) … The text answer to the self-reflective question is retrieved from the system database and inserted into a personalized ‘management plan’ interface [0392-0396]. The AI engine 100 may provide automated assistance for users online (Bots) and with their training in a preferred embodiment. Various learning AI options as listed below may be provided. Temporal analyses to determine changes in user mental states [0699]. Person-centered care model to take into account the individual's subjective circumstances, emotional state and any stated preferences, and respond comprehensively, non-judgmentally and compassionately [0619].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface and personalized data gathering to determine the mental state of the user as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of providing specialist-grade virtual care based on the mental state of the patient which is personalized to the user’s specific needs (see Galambos, ¶ 0009-0012).
Regarding Claim 10, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell, Cha, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the following limitations met by Galambos:
wherein the personalized experience interface includes one or more personalized components that include at least a daily interaction component, (Galambos teaches the user device comprises a processor, a human user interface, a machine-to-machine interface and a network device, herein the human user interface is adapted to deliver a product generated by the AI engine, the human user interface is adapted to deliver a virtual reality environment, and the machine-to-machine interface is adapted to connect to a medical device to deliver stimulation therapies [0023].)
a relevant resource component, (Galambos teaches one of the default prescriptions is selected for providing educational content relevant to a patient's medical condition [0004]. Continuous user interactivity, personalizing opportunities and embedded quizzes makes training pressure free and the service more engaging than iCBT type courses [0547]. The system 10 may facilitate better assessment and treatment coordination, connecting the patient to all the key relevant help-providers to optimize care [0641].)
and a dynamic selection component (Galambos teaches a database on the server includes a number of predetermined “presentation prescriptions,” each of which is a listing of educational sub-topics selected to provide an overview of a medical condition for patient education purposes. Each sub-topic has a corresponding content file (e.g., film clip) stored on the tablet computer. In operation, one of the default prescriptions is selected for providing educational content relevant to a patient's medical condition [0004].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interactive interface, a relevant resource component, and a dynamic selection component as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of providing specialist-grade virtual care with interactive components based on the mental state of the patient which is personalized to the user’s specific needs (see Galambos, ¶ 0009-0012).
Regarding Claim 11, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell, Cha, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the following limitations met by Galambos:
wherein the dynamic selection component includes at least one general selection and, responsive to the at least one health condition, at least one health condition specific component. (Galambos teaches a multi-purpose platform system 10 …containing a suite of digital mental health services 20 (eLEARNING service, CONNECT service, and PLUS additional services) that working together function as a ‘virtual hospital and mental health system infrastructure.’ It provides quality control similar to psychiatric hospitals around what happens in relation to specific types of mental health care [0090]. Galambos teaches The “user-centered course” referring to in this specification is broader in function than a ‘course.’ It has various functions including being: … d) a digital mental health service matching ‘search engine’ providing users with online access to specific digital mental health services, which also encourages and facilitates innovation in mental health services that improves mental health literacy, support and clinical interventions. e) a knowledge-matching ‘search engine’ providing users with online access to specific mental health-related information [0113-0119].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized and a dynamic selection component as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of providing specialist-grade virtual care with interactive components based on the mental state of the patient which is personalized to the user’s specific needs (see Galambos, ¶ 0009-0012).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendell, Galambos, Cha, Cedergreen, and Hampden in view of Lewis et al. (US 20180166174 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the following limitations met by Lewis:
wherein the plurality of predetermined health conditions include at least one of at least one behavioral health condition, at least one musculoskeletal health condition, and at least one other health condition (Lewis teaches a chronic disease mitigation and elimination system and learning engine provides a software interface to a patient for inputting a variety of information regarding their health, condition, behaviors, environment, attitudes, diagnoses, drugs, blood or related testing, and the like [0117]. The subject completes a survey of questions related to their health, condition, behaviors, environment, attitudes, diagnoses, drugs and other questions pertaining to their past, current, and future health. The survey selectable answers to each question are each assigned a risk value for general and specific chronic disease states and overall health. A mathematical algorithm powering the survey calculates the relative risks, with respect to chronic diseases for the survey taker, based on their answers [0120].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface as taught by Galambos and further to incorporate personalized information from a set of predetermined health conditions as taught by Lewis. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of assisting the user with their health condition (see Lewis, ¶ 0003, 0008).
Regarding Claim 5, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Lewis teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 4 above. Galambos further recites the following:
wherein the at least one behavioral health condition corresponds to at least one of depression, generalized anxiety, bipolar disorder, and at least one other behavioral health condition. (Galambos teaches a multi-purpose platform system 10 … containing a suite of digital mental health services 20 …that working together function as a ‘virtual hospital and mental health system infrastructure [0090]. Further, An example of the disorder module (termed ‘Diagnosis Subunit’) of the system 10 of the present disclosure comprises the following:
Subunit 3.1 A Guide to Classifying Mood and Anxiety Disorders
Part I Descriptive Classifications: The Mood and Anxiety Banners…
Diagnosis Subunit Banner: Mood Sail: Mind Stripe: Reactive Depression
Subunit 4.2 A guide to classifying personality disorders
Part I Descriptive Classifications: The personality Banner… [0735-0890].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which maintains a set of predetermined health conditions as taught by Lewis, further, to maintain data on the specific behavioral health conditions as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of assisting the user with their health condition (see Lewis, ¶ 0003, 0008) and providing specific mental health assistance to make care more efficient and safer (see Galambos, ¶ 0019).
Regarding Claim 6, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, Hampden and Lewis teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 4 above. Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the following limitations met by Lewis:
wherein the at least one musculoskeletal health condition corresponds to at least one of back pain, neck pain, joint pain, and at least one other musculoskeletal health condition. (Lewis teaches a method and system for screening, monitoring, and diagnosing chronic diseases in which FIG. 4B shows the connection between specific biomarkers and chronic disease categories and conditions. This total temperature is added to 98.6 to give the subject their CDT and their “specific” disease temperature where the specific disease is one of the following but not limited to… inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, musculoskeletal diseases, kidney diseases, oral cavity diseases, and respiratory diseases. FIG. 4C shows disease specific biomarkers contributing to disease-specific temperatures [0122]. In one embodiment, the chronic disease associated with or contributing to the chronic disease burden of a human may be musculoskeletal diseases including, but not limited to: arthritis, osteoporosis, osteomalacia, carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, bursitis, muscular dystrophy, myasthenia gravis, and lupus erythematosus [0135].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface as taught by Galambos and further to incorporate personalized information from a set of predetermined health conditions including specific musculoskeletal conditions as taught by Lewis. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of assisting the user with their health conditions (see Lewis, ¶ 0003, 0008).
Regarding Claim 7, Mendell, Galambos, Cha, Cedergreen, Hampden, and Lewis teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 4 above. Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the following limitations met by Lewis:
wherein the at least one other health condition corresponds to at least one of cancer, diabetes, heart failure, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, covid 19, and at least one other health condition. (Lewis teaches the chronic disease associated with or contributing to the chronic disease burden of a human may be any form of cancer [0132]. The chronic disease associated with or contributing to the chronic disease burden of a human may be a metabolic disease including, but not limited to: diabetes (type 1, 2, or 3), metabolic syndrome X, metabolic brain diseases… [0129]. The chronic disease associated with or contributing to the chronic disease burden of a human may be cardiovascular disease and the many diseases associated with that label including, but not limited to: atherosclerosis, stroke, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, cardiac arrest, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, peripheral artery disease, congenital heart disease [0128].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface as taught by Galambos and further to incorporate personalized information from a set of predetermined health conditions as taught by Lewis. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of assisting the user with their health condition (see Lewis, ¶ 0003, 0008).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden in view of Bauer et al. (US 20110072367 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Mendell does not disclose the following limitations met by Galambos:
further comprising providing, at a metaverse, access to at least one three-dimensional environment feature using the user avatar. (Galambos teaches the human user interface is adapted to deliver a virtual reality environment, and the machine-to-machine interface is adapted to connect to a medical device to deliver stimulation therapies [0023].)
Galambos does not teach the three dimensional components of the virtual environment which is met by Bauer:
(Bauer teaches a method of providing a virtual environment that includes multiple virtual rooms and areas for interaction among avatars [0004].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface and virtual environment as taught by Galambos, and further to incorporate a three-dimensional virtual environment as taught by Bauer. The modification would allow for real-time visual and aural perception of large multi-user communities have heretofore not been provided for by any software or computer systems currently in use on the Internet (see Bauer, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 14, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, Hampden and Bauer teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 13 above. Mendell does not disclose the following limitations met by Galambos:
wherein the at least one three-dimensional environment feature includes at least one of a virtual healthcare provider office, a virtual healthcare provider, and at least one other three-dimensional environment feature. (Galambos teaches a mental health individual help-provider matching ‘search engine’ providing users with Telehealth-accessible specific help-providers (clinicians, mentors and coaches) [0116].)
Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, and Hampden do not teach the three dimensional components of the virtual environment which is met by Bauer:
(Bauer teaches a method of providing a virtual environment that includes multiple virtual rooms and areas for interaction among avatars [0004].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate a three-dimensional virtual environment as taught by Bauer. The modification would allow for real-time visual and aural perception of large multi-user communities have heretofore not been provided for by any software or computer systems currently in use on the Internet (see Bauer, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, Mendell, Cha, Galambos, Cedergreen, Hampden, and Bauer teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 14 above. Mendell, Cha, Cedergreen, Hampden and Bauer do not teach the following limitations met by Galambos:
wherein the virtual healthcare provider includes at least one of an avatar corresponding to a healthcare provider and an avatar corresponding to an artificially intelligent healthcare provider. (Galambos teaches most of the text is embedded in speech bubbles from conversations between characterological representations of three team members—a programmed avatar of the psychiatrist inventor, a programmed avatar assistant who represents either a mentor, clinician or a coach and the user is represented by an ‘alter ego’ in-theme avatar [0187]. Preferably, the digital mental health services are adapted to provide Online access for supplementary and complementary services to existing GP and specialist care that provide access to cutting-edge interventions and technological developments, such as artificial intelligence, Virtual Reality and neurostimulation therapies [0022].) Although Galambos does not teach artificial intelligence being implemented as an avatar, it would have been obvious to make the incorporation of that to provide health advice. This would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods for receiving prescription information and determining the health status of a patient as disclosed by Mendell to incorporate an application which provides a user with a personalized interface within a virtual environment as well as a virtual healthcare provided as taught by Galambos. This modification would create a system and methods which provides physician-grade care through a remote service (see Galambos, ¶ 0010-0011).
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues to the Memorandum of Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents, dated August 4, 2025, in which the Commissioner reminds the Technology Centers that the "mental process grouping is not without limits." Examiners are reminded to not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind (p. 1).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the 101 rejection above, the claims are not grouped in mental processes, but rather, they are grouped in certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 recites limitations that include explicit machine functions, e.g., (1) controlling a loading device to load a prescription container into a puck; (2) controlling at least one dispensing device to fulfill the at least one prescription by dispensing at least one item into the prescription container, wherein the at least one dispensing device includes at least one of an automated prescription pill dispenser, a unit of use dispenser, or both; (3) in response to the dispensing device dispensing the at least one item into the prescription container, generating information corresponding to the user; These claim elements are not managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (p. 1).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “explicit machine functions” are not the result of implementing the results of the abstract idea. Further, the “controlling a literature device providing prescription literature associated with the prescription container” does not necessarily mean the literature is printed or dispensed using broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Applicant argues the claims are not managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – specifically the claims are not related to a mental process a neurologist testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions (p. 1).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in MPEP 2106.04(II)(C) that limits managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people to the examples listed. The examples are just that, examples. Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of the claims can be carried out by a person behind a generic computer as the claims do not specify how or by whom the various generic devices are controlled.
Further, there is no requirement for the Examiner to compare the claims to a court case. Rather, it is the job of the Examiner to explain how the claims fall into the identified abstract grouping. In this case, the example of “a mental process a that neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” is a court case (In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)) which was also grouped into the certain methods of organizing human activity abstract ideas grouping. The Examiner did not label this case in the mental processes grouping, but as an example of a court case grouped in the same abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
After determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04(d) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application). The court has provided limitations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application and limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) – Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application). Here the instant claims seem more analogous to "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues Cha is not directed to healthcare and is therefore directed to a non-analogous technology (p. 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cha teaches the implementation of the user application for healthcare based implementations (see Cha, p. 7, ¶ 0011).
Applicant argues the references do not teach “controlling a literature device providing prescription literature associated with the prescription container” (p. 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cedergreen teaches printing and the inclusion of prescription materials (i.e., drug interaction warnings, recommended usage, possible side effects) with the fulfilled prescription for shipping (see Cedergreen ¶ 0110).
Conclusion
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 OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681