DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This non-final office action is in response to the Request for Continuing Examination communication filed by the Applicant on 26 February 2026. Claim 1 has been amended and is considered below. Claims 1-10 are pending and considered below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kurylko et al. (20210335484) in view of Siegel (20210065862) and in further view of Karbowicz et al. (20200135317), Brunner (20190156938) and Madisetti et al (20220094645).
Claim 1: Kurylko discloses a method for providing prescription management service comprising: in a processing system ([91]-[100]),
receiving a prescription for a user and transmitting the prescription to a system digital wallet of the user ([22 “point of sale (POS) terminal 122, an insurance service 140 operated by a health insurance carrier of the consumer 110, a prescription optimization (POP) service 150 that routes transaction information, and a pharmacy,” 23 “doctor prescribes a medicine that is entered into the doctor system 120. Then, when the consumer 110 is ready to check out, the consumer 110 can be informed that there is a prescription and that the consumer 110 can use the payment network to select and optionally prepay for the prescription. The consumer 110 can use an application on the computing device 112 to effectuate the optimized fulfillment of the prescription,” 26 “application at the computing device 112 is configured as a wallet application with a prescription optimization feature,”]);
using the system digital wallet to select a pharmacy to fill the prescription ([24 “application can enable the consumer 110 to select a pharmacy and whether to prepay for the prescription. Once the consumer makes their selections, the computing device 112 can transmit the selections as confirmed information to the doctor POS terminal 122, which relays the confirmed information, including payment/prepayment indication,” 25 “service 150 transmits some or all of the confirmed information to the insurance service 140. The insurance service 140 then transmits an authorization to the pharmacy,” 26 “application at the computing device 112 is configured as a wallet application with a prescription optimization feature,” 65]);
presenting the cost of filling the prescription at the selected pharmacy to the user ([24 “a user interface of the application at the computing device 112 may update to reflect the prescription, image, price, and even whether a generic is available,” 65 “such as payment source (e.g., credit card and credit card number), hours of availability of the selected pharmacy, price expectation, and status of prescription, can be provided as part of the pre-confirmation page….because the user selected the generic, which was indicated to cost $20, the balance 564 is updated to reflect the deduction of the cost of the generic,” 66 “obtaining (604) medication information at least including pricing information for the prescription for the medicine for the patient; and transmitting (606) the medication information to a payment application with prescription feature,”]);
receiving payment for the prescription ([46 “computing device 112 can receive (S238) from the consumer 110 an input selecting one of the pharmacies. The interface of the application can include options for the consumer to pre-pay for the medication or to pay at the selected pharmacy. The computing device 112 can thus receive (S240) a payment indication from the consumer that indicates whether the consumer wants to pre-pay for the medication or to pay at the selected pharmacy,”]);
Kurylko does not explicitly disclose however Karbowicz discloses:
receiving prescription-fulfillment status information from a pharmacy system and updating the prescription status maintained by the system digital wallet based on the prescription-fulfillment status information ([16 “monitoring a status of a prescription, wherein the status includes if the prescription has been filled and/or if a location to fill the prescription has been changed,” 60 “prescription information may include a dose, name of the prescriber that prescribed the prescription, number of remaining refills, and a status of the prescription. The status of the prescription may include an option for the patient to request to fill the prescription, if the prescription is being filled but not ready for pick-up, and if the prescription is ready for pick-up. The prescription information may further include a price of previous fills of the prescription,” Figure 8]);
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko to receive prescription-fulfillment status information from a pharmacy system and updating the prescription status maintained by the system digital wallet based on the prescription-fulfillment status information as per the steps of Karbowicz in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Kurylko does not explicitly disclose however Siegel discloses:
receiving confirmation from the user regarding the cost and a method of delivery of the prescription ([85 “selection of a pharmacy may be received. The pharmacy may be selected by the user by interaction with a user deice (e.g., by selecting a pharmacy in map 600 of FIG. 6 or via a row in table 700 of FIG. 7). One or more confirmations may be received prior to the selection being finalized. For example, a user may select a pharmacy and may be directed to an electronic confirmation page where details about the pharmacy (e.g., location, hours of operation, distance, etc.) as well as the treatment (e.g., medicine name, quantity, strength, etc.), may be provided. The user may confirm the information and, upon confirmation, finalize the selection of the pharmacy,” 86 “transmitting the prescription to the selected pharmacy, at step 116, the user may receive a confirmation of the transmission of the pharmacy. The user may then be able to visit the pharmacy to pick up the treatment associated with the prescription. Alternatively, the pharmacy may be able to ship the treatment associated with the prescription directly to the user.”]);
filling the prescription based on the method of delivery ([52 “time preferences may be preferences based on times that the user prefers to obtain a given treatment from a pharmacy, wait times at a pharmacy, operating hours of a pharmacy, times that a delivery of a treatment can be made,” 55, 62 “cloud electronic system 210 may serve as a virtual wallet to hold one or more of the user's prescriptions such that they can be accessed and managed via a single platform associated with cloud electronic system 210. This configuration may allow the user to easily access all of her prescriptions through the single platform. The user may access her virtual wallet to select each prescription individually when she is preparing to fulfill or refill the prescription,” 63 “prescription page 400 includes a treatment 410, a strength information 420, a quantity 422, a location 424, as well as a submission button,” 67-70]).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko to receive confirmation from the user regarding the cost and a method of delivery of the prescription and fill the prescription based on the method of delivery as per the steps of Siegel in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Kurylko does not explicitly disclose, however Brunner discloses:
maintaining. by the system digital wallet, prescription lifecycle information including a prescription status stored in association with the prescription ([18 “prescription is signed, and a token amount from the physician's integrated wallet, which is holding a balance of native network tokens, is paired to the prescription data structure. The prescription is then transmitted to a pharmacy management system (referred to as “the system” herein). The status of the prescription is managed by the system and recorded on a blockchain to securely mange the lifecycle of each prescription,” 19, 20, Fig. 3]);
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko to maintain by the system digital wallet, prescription lifecycle information including a prescription status stored in association with the prescription as per the steps of Brunner in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Kurylko does not explicitly disclose however Madisetti discloses:
authenticating a user device associated with the system digital wallet using a challenge-token authentication process prior to enabling prescription-management operations ([33 “Furthermore, challenge/response authentication or encrypted authentication tokens can be used for authentication with the server,” 120 “system's platform and application services layer 932 comprises Integration Services 914, Identity & Authentication Services 920, User Registration & Certification Services 926, Data Management & Analytics Services 934. The Integration Services 914, comprise Inter-Blockchain and Intra-blockchain Messaging Services 916, and various connectors for applications, cloud services and other blockchain networks 918. The Identity & Authentication Services 920 comprise a User Identity & Access Management Service,” 121, 132-144]).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko to authenticate a user device associated with the system digital wallet using a challenge-token authentication process prior to enabling prescription-management operations as per the steps of Madisetti in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Claim 2: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko further discloses wherein the system digital wallet is implemented as an app on a computing device of the user ([18 “present disclosure use a payment application (e.g., a built-in wallet application for a smartphone, a card issuer's smartphone application, or a merchant application with payment capabilities) to connect to a payment gateway, e.g., via a point-of-sale (POS) terminal at a doctor's office,” 19, 20]).
Claim 3: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko further discloses wherein the system digital wallet obtains authorization from an insurance company when prior authorization is required prior to filling the prescription ([25 “insurance service 140 then transmits an authorization to the pharmacy 160. In some cases, the POP service 150 transmits the confirmed information to the pharmacy,” 50 “authorization of dispensation can be received by the insurance service 140, which can then transmit (S248) the prescription order to the selected pharmacy. The prescription order provides an authorization to the pharmacy to dispense the medication,” 65, 66]).
Claim 8: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 7 above and Kurylko further discloses where the system routes the prescription only to pharmacies capable of filling the prescription based on prescription characteristics and user preferences ([18, 19 “issuer's banking application on a user's smartphone is used to improve the experience of a consumer (e.g., a patient or a patient-beneficiary) in filling a prescription for a medication or treatment. For example, the application can inform the consumer, in advance of going to a pharmacy, whether there is a generic available for the medication or treatment and what its cost will be,” 27 “when the consumer 110 is ready to check out after their visit with the medical professional, the consumer 110 can initiate (S210) their application with optimized prescription filling feature on the computing device 112. As previously mentioned, the optimized prescription filling feature can be part of an issuer's banking application or even part of a stand-alone wallet application,” 28 “consumer 110, via the application on the computing device 112, can initiate a communication between the computing device 112 and the doctor POS terminal 122 in order to initiate (S212) an optimized prescription fill request (referred to here as a “POP request”) via a payment network,” 29-31]).
Claim 9: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko further discloses where the system provides text and audio-visual information regarding the prescription to the system digital wallet ([96, 97 “audio interface 840 can be used to provide audible signals to and receive audible signals from the user. For example, the audio interface 840 can be coupled to a speaker to provide audible output and a microphone to receive audible input, such as to facilitate a telephone conversation or voice commands,” 98 “include video interface 845 that enables an operation of an optional camera (not shown) to record still images, video stream, and the like. Visual output can be provided via a display 855. Visual output may be depicted on the display 855 in myriad ways, presenting graphical user interface elements, text, images, video, notifications, virtual buttons, virtual keyboards,”]).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kurylko et al. (20210335484) in view of Siegel (20210065862) Karbowicz et al. (20200135317), Brunner (20190156938) and Madisetti et al (20220094645) and in further view of Salud et al. (11,664,120).
Claim 4: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 3 above and Kurylko does not explicitly disclose and Salud further discloses wherein a step of determining if prior authorization is required is performed using artificial intelligence (Al) (7:46-67, 8:1-52 “a method to electronically obtain prior authorizations (e.g., cover my meds) data source,” 17:4-24 “neural network model may be, for example, a network or circuit of neurons, or in a modern sense, an artificial neural network, composed of artificial neurons or nodes. Thus a neural network may be an artificial neural network, for solving artificial intelligence (AI) problems (e.g., predicting whether a prescription will be returned to stock),” 18:18-46 “processor 162 may execute the predict return to stock module 545a to, for example, cause the processor 162 to predict whether a prescription will be returned to stock (block 530d). For example, the processor 162 may receive prescription data (block 505d) and/or patient health record data (block 510d), that is representative of a current prescription/patient, and may implement an associated predictive model based on the current prescription data and/or patient health record data to determine whether or not the patient will actually pick-up a medication and/or medical device associated with the prescription,”]).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko wherein a step of determining if prior authorization is required is performed using artificial intelligence (Al) as per the steps of Salud in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Claim 6: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko does not explicitly disclose and Salud further discloses wherein the processing system use artificial intelligence (AI) to provide intelligent routing of prescriptions (10:1-13 “electronically transmitting prescriptions to a transaction hub; conducting all safety checks using an integrated decision support system (often known as a Drug Utilization Review); safety checks (i.e., automated prompts that offer information on the drug being prescribed, potential inappropriate dose or route of administration, drug-drug interactions, allergy concerns, or warnings of caution, etc.),” 17:4-62 “neural network may be an artificial neural network, for solving artificial intelligence (AI) problems (e.g., predicting whether a prescription will be returned to stock)….regression model may be, for example, a set of statistical processes for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (often called the ‘outcome variable’) (e.g., predicting whether a prescription will be returned to stock) and one or more independent variables (often called ‘predictors’, ‘covariates’, or ‘features’),” 18:6-28).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko wherein the processing system use artificial intelligence (AI) to provide intelligent routing of prescriptions as per the steps of Salud in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Claim 7: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 6 above and Kurylko does not explicitly disclose and Salud further discloses wherein the AI is trained using a reinforcement learning method incorporating a loss function (16:61-67, 17:1-17 “machine learning technique for regression and classification problems (e.g., predicting whether a prescription will be returned to stock), which produces a prediction model in the form of an ensemble of weak prediction models, typically decision trees. Extreme, or lite, gradient boosting may build a model in a stage-wise fashion like other boosting methods do, and may generalize the models by allowing optimization of an arbitrary differentiable loss function,”).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko wherein the AI is trained using a reinforcement learning method incorporating a loss function as per the steps of Salud in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kurylko et al. (20210335484) in view of Siegel (20210065862) Karbowicz et al. (20200135317), Brunner (20190156938) and Madisetti et al (20220094645) and in further view of Karbowicz et al. (20200135317).
Claim 5: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko does not explicitly disclose however Karbowicz discloses wherein the system digital wallet determines if cash-pay programs are available for the prescription when prior authorization is required and denied ([23 “patient-directed electronic prescription wallet (PDEPW). The PDEPW may receive an electronic prescription from a prescriber assigned to a patient wallet associated with a patient,” 59 “profile 300 may comprise a primary user authorized to make changes to the profile 300, wherein the changes may include adding secondary users, adjusting payment information, adjusting preferences, adjusting an address, and the like. The preferences may include ranking priorities for filling a prescription, wherein prioritization may be based on price, proximity, availability, wait times,” 81 “Physically paying may differ from electronic payment in that physical payment may include the patient paying with cash, check, credit and/or debit card, and/or the like in-person at the pharmacy, whereas electronic payment may be automatic in response to a request from the pharmacy and may not demand the patient to provide a physical form of payment,” 82 “patient may pay for the prescription in-person at the pharmacy during pick-up. The payment may be updated to the patient profile at 606, wherein the updating may include uploading a receipt or the like to the patient profile. As such, 608 may be omitted from the method 600 in the example where the patient pays in-person for the prescription or during another example where a patient has not provided payment information to their profile,”]).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko wherein the system digital wallet determines if cash-pay programs are available for the prescription when prior authorization is required and denied as per the steps of Karbowicz in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Claim 10: Kurylko in view of Siegel, Karbowicz, Brunner, and Madisetti discloses the method as for Claim 1 above and Kurylko does not explicitly disclose however Karbowicz discloses wherein the system provides drug interaction information to the user based on a historical list of prescriptions of the user stored in conjunction with the digital wallet ([7 “patient's profile may comprise pertinent data associated with the patient's medical history, concomitant medications, insurance coverage, and the like. In one example, the central server may inform the prescriber of the patient's insurance policy upon receiving a prescription such that the prescriber may execute the desired evaluations of the patient for the patient to receive financial coverage of the prescription,” 24 “The PDEPW may maintain a history of the prescription, transmission, additional refills, date, time, and/or location of pharmacy at which the prescription was filled. Some health plans dictate that medications are to be filled at different pharmacies. For example, “specialty” medications may only be designated to be filled at a health plan's designated specialty pharmacy, while chronic medications may only be designated to be dispensed from a pharmacy benefit manager's mail-order facility, and a person who is acutely ill may pick up pain medication or antibiotics from a corner drug store….based on the patient information and the electronic prescriptions stored in the patient's electronic prescription wallet….centralized management of electronic prescriptions (and patient information) allows for coordination of medications to allow for drug interaction checking and medication regimen optimization.),”]).
Therefore it would be obvious for Kurylko wherein the system provides drug interaction information to the user based on a historical list of prescriptions of the user stored in conjunction with the digital wallet as per the steps of Karbowicz in order to enable and facilitate payment by the patient or user of prescriptions and thus result in a more efficient and precise methodology of providing prescriptions to patients.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
After careful review of Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 26 February 2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicants remarks and amendments to the independent claim more precisely detailing the technical operations of the system, as evaluated under the requirements of the 2019 PEG Revised Step 2A Prongs One and Two and the requirements of MPEP 2106 results in the Examiner determining the instant invention is eligible under the requirements of the statute. Examiner maintains the instant invention is directed to a judicial exception however the currently in place amendments result in the determination that the instant invention is directed to a practical application and improvement to computer functionality.
Examiner has determined that the instant invention is directed to a judicial exception is similar to abstract ideas related to certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
As a result of the Applicants amendments to the independent claim 1 with respect to detailed amendments to the independent claim specifically detailing procedures as related to written description disclosures related to the specific operations of the digital wallet related to maintaining a lifecycle information related to prescription status, the authentication of user devices as related to a challenge token procedure, and the updating of prescription status maintained by the system. Applicants inclusion of the processes as detailed at paragraphs [36]-[38] are sufficient to result in the removal of the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks/Amendments, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of previously cited references Kurylko, Siegel, Salud and Karbowicz and in further view of newly identified references Brunner and Madisetti. Applicants amended the instant claims to more precisely claim methods of maintaining lifecycle information, implementing challenge token methods for authentication, and receiving prescription fulfillment status as related to prescriptions. As explained and cited to above the newly cited to references Brunner and Madisetti as well as previously cited to reference Karbowicz disclose the newly amended claims and therefore the rejection of all pending claims under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached References Cited form 892.
See Chan et al (20250278441) for disclosures related to the implementation of an optimized system for the search and acquisition of multiple medication pharmacies and determining if it is more advantageous to purchase online or at a location. See at least paras. [6]-[32].
See Aabye et al. (20230062507) for disclosures related to the implementation of an access control server for the processing of credentials or tokens from and access device and controlling access to the sytems. See at least paras. [52]-[81].
See Ferenczi (20230034169) for disclosures related to various methods for authenticating users by the implementation of non-fungible tokens and the associated verification of identity and selective permutation of access to systems. See at least paras. [15]-[50].
See Zhou et al. (20220284428) for disclosures related to the facilitation of payment by the implementation of digital tokens from consumer accounts to merchant accounts in exchange for good purchased. See at least paras. [49]-[64].
See Rivlin (11,012,245) for disclosures related to the secure management of decentralized identity data with the implementation of cryptographically related indexes and the implementation of cryptographic keys.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID STOLTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3472. The examiner can normally be reached on generally 8am to 8pm EST M-F.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571 272 6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J STOLTENBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights