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 .
Notice to Applicant
Receipt of Applicant’s Supplemental Amendment filed May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended by supplemental amendment provided on May 20, 2026. Claim 2-8 and 10-19 have not been amended. The supplemental amendments have been entered and claims 1-19 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. A response is provided below.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejections, pg. 8 of Remarks:
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that the claims are “not directed merely to requesting and receiving pricing information” and “recites, among other things, a storage accessible by a system computer that includes a relational database comprising a lookup table.” Examiner notes that any additional elements, such as the relational database and lookup table are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. Prong One only serves to identify an abstract idea, which is the requesting and receiving pricing information that the relational database and lookup table are used for.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, by providing a system for simultaneous searching of multiple different medication search service databases that do not consistently use the same National Drug Code for medications. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no indication in Applicant specification that the problem being solved is technical in nature. Rather, the improvement is to the abstract idea of searching for medication pricing offered by different medication search services, as supported by [0003] of Applicant specification, which recites: “However, the individual does not have a truly accurate way to compare pricing from one source to another. For example, the prices of drugs are often variable depending on the source providing the drugs and on the insurance plan the user currently has.” (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”).
Applicant further argues that the claims require a relational database including a lookup table, which provides the improvement. However, the claims only recite high level usage of a relational database with associated lookup table at a high level of generality with no specific, technical improvements to the way the relational database functions. Rather, applying a relational database with a lookup table to search for medication information is more of a field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h), which recites: “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Even further, a lookup table is considered abstract, and not an additional element, as it is nothing more than an arrangement of data.
Applicant further argues that the ordered combination of the system computer, network, storage, relational database, profile database, user computer, medication search service computers, and graphical user interface provide an ordered combination that provides a practical application as it includes a lookup table within the relational database that the computer then utilizes to perform the drug search. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, no improvements are being provided by simply applying a relational database with a lookup table to a system computer to perform the abstract function. Furthermore, the ordered combination is addressed on pg. 12 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 10/31/2025.
The citations of the specification provided by Applicant ([0030]-[0035]) describes a relational database as they are typically used with no specific, technical improvements made to database technologies.
Applicant further argues that the claimed improvement is technical mechanism that enables simultaneous and comparable searching of unrelated medication search service databases despite inconsistent medication coding. However, the claimed additional elements of the computer, relational database, and lookup table are applied generically that are only applied to perform this function to solve the abstract problem of comparing pricing information across different platforms. There is no indication that there is any improvement to the additional elements themselves. Rather, only that they are being applied to the field of use of medication price comparison between different platforms.
Applicant further argues that the provided art does not address the claim language as the claims require a medication-specific lookup table, different medication codes, generation of queries using medication search service data, transmission to unrelated medication search service computers, and normalization of the returned medication information. Examiner notes that medication and drugs are only a field of use; MPEP 2106.05(h). As the provided references demonstrate that simultaneous searching of multiple databases is known, Examiner submits that the simultaneous database searching of the instant application is not determined to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not merely add insignificant extra-solution activity as many of the steps are core operations. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion, but notes that these data processing steps do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as they are performed for the purpose of searching for medication pricing offered by different medication search services, as supported by [0003] of Applicant specification, and do not provide any specific, technical improvements to the additional elements, alone or in combination. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer and generic relational database. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Examiner notes that drug identifiers are not an additional element, as they are data to identify drugs.
Examiner also notes that if Applicant specification recites any specific, technical improvements to the functioning of relational databases that is beyond the field of use described by [0034] of Applicant specification, that may be helpful in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the inventive concept is found in the ordered combination in that it provides a particular arrangement of additional elements to address a problem in databases using different product identifiers for the same product. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the problem identified is abstract, not technical, in nature. The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea of market inquiry across different platforms using a general purpose computer and generic relational database including a lookup table.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejections, pg. 15 of Remarks:
Applicant argues Kranzley in view of Hinton does not teach the amended claim limitation of the lookup table, which maps drug references between different platforms. Applicant arguments are moot as additional art is provided to address the amended limitations. Please see the modified 103 rejection below.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process and a machine (claims 1-19). Accordingly, claims 1-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner identifies method claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention and is similar to system claim 1.
Claim 9:
A method for correlating diverse medication information from a plurality of medication search services with a system computer connected to a network and having a storage, the method comprising the steps of:
the system computer receiving from a user computer a medication search query related to a mediation and user information specific to the user;
the system computer searching the storage that comprises a relational database including a lookup table that maps between various medication search databases and includes medication information from a first medication search service and from a second medication search service, the medication information selected from the group consisting of: medication name, medication dosage, medication code data, or combinations thereof, and a profile database including user information selected from the group consisting of: name, zip code, user preferences, authentication data, or combinations thereof, wherein the lookup table maps a drug reference in a first medication search service database with a drug reference in a second medication search service database to provide normalized medication information;
the system computer cross-referencing the medication search query with the relational database to identify first and second medication search service data using the lookup table;
wherein the first medication search service data includes a first medication code and the second medication search service data includes a second medication code, where the first medication code is different than the second medication code and wherein the medication code data comprises National Drug Code (NDC) identifiers;
the system computer, in response to the medication search query, automatically generating a first query comprising the first medication search service data and the user information, and automatically generating a second query comprising the second medication search service data and the user information,
the system computer simultaneously transmitting the first and second queries to a first medication search service computer associated with the first medication search service and to a second medication search service computer associated with the second medication search service respectively, where the first and second medication search services are unrelated entities;
the first medication search service computer providing first medication information associated with third party medication retailers to said system computer in response to the first query and the second medication search service computer provides second medication information associated with third party medication retailers to said system computer in response to the second query; and
the system computer normalizing the first and second medication information with the relational database so that comparable data from both the first and second medication search service computers can be simultaneously searched and presented to the user and simultaneously presenting a list of prices corresponding to the medication search query.
These above limitations, not in bold, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim elements are directed towards receiving a medication search query, providing first and second medication information in response to search service data, and presenting a list of prices corresponding to the medication search query. These elements fall under fundamental economic practices or principles as the method is akin to inquiring about and receiving market information about a product.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is abstract for similar reasons.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Additional elements recited in the claims:
system computer (1,9,11,13); network (1,9); storage (1,9); relational database (1,9); profile database (1,9); user computer (1,9); first medication search service computer (1,9,18,19); second medication search service computer (1,9,18,19); graphic user interface (3,5)
Any and all computing devices (system computer, user computer, first medication search service computer, second medication search service computer) are taught at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic computing component. Fig. 1 of Applicant specification depicts four generic computers communicating via networks. Figs. 3-13 depict wherein the user computer can be a smartphone device. No specific, technical improvements are being made to the technology of computing devices as they are applied to perform the abstract idea of searching for pricing information across different platforms.
The storage devices (storage, relational database, profile database) are also taught at a high level of generality. [0030] of Applicant specification recites: “Computer 102 has a storage(s) 104, 106 that may comprise one or more databases. In one configuration, storage 104 may be used to hold user information… Storage 106 may comprise a database of information for cross-referencing other databases information.” As the storage is simply used to store data and perform within the normal functions of relational databases, no specific, technical improvements are made to storage devices.
The graphical user interface (GUI) is also taught at a high level of generality. The claims recite “a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive location information”(3), “a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive medication information associated with the medication search query”(5), “wherein the GUI comprises a window adapted to receive text”(6). As the GUI simply allows a user input data, no specific, technical improvements are made to interface technologies.
The network is also taught at a high level of generality. [0020] of Applicant specification recites: “The term "network" as used herein includes both networks and internetworks of all kinds, including the Internet, and is not limited to any particular type of network or inter-network.” As a variety of generic networks are simply utilized within the scope of the invention, no specific, technical improvements are made to networking technologies.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2 and 10: These claims recite wherein the user information is further selected from the group consisting of: date of birth, address, medical information or history, insurance information, or combinations thereof; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.
Claims 3 and 11: These claims recite wherein said software comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive location information; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data.
Claims 4 and 12: These claims recite wherein the system presents pricing information based in part on the location information; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.
Claims 5 and 13: These claims recite wherein said software comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive the medication information associated with the medication search query; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data.
Claims 6 and 14: These claims recite wherein the GUI comprises a window adapted to receive text; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data.
Claims 7 and 15: These claims recite wherein when the medication search query is entered, the system will dynamically search the database of medications and provide medication options that can be selected based on the entered data; which teaches an abstract idea of searching a database and providing medication options.
Claims 8 and 17: These claims recite wherein the list of prices corresponding to the medication search query further includes pharmacy information selected from the group consisting of: pharmacy name, pharmacy location or distance; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.
Claim 16: This claim recites wherein the medication options are adapted to be selected by the user; which teaches an abstract idea of managing personal behaviors, such as adapting data to be selected by a user.
Claims 18 and 19: These claims recite wherein the first medication information provided by the first medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a first group of retail outlets compiled by the first medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the first group; and wherein the second medication information provided by the second medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a second group of retail outlets compiled by the second medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the second group; which only serves to further limit the medication information.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as determining the wellness categories of a person based on tested blood, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv); providing a credit offset for the deductible, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii).
Relational databases that comprise tables of data are known. Pg. 1 of Wikipedia, Relational database, 2012 Jun 2, Wikipedia recites: “A relational database is a collection of data items organized as a set of formally described tables from which data can be accessed easily.”
Examiner further notes that simultaneous searching of multiple databases with a single query describes an improvement to the abstract idea of searching of medication information. No specific, technical improvements are provided by the claimed subject matter as simultaneous searching is known within the art.
Pg. 4 of Lawrence; Ramon, How To Query Multiple Databases and Generate Reports, 2018 Mar 12, UnityJDBC describes: “The idea of mediation software is to leave the data where it resides and only extract the required data on demand. The user writes one query submitted to the mediation software that is responsible for optimizing the query to determine an efficient execution plan, translating each query to extract the relevant data from each source, and merging the results from sources into a single answer. From the user perspective, one query produces one answer from a single "virtual" database. Mediator systems have a long history in the database research community. There are also several commercial products that provide this functionality.”
Papakonstantinou; Yannis, Capabilities-based query rewriting in mediator systems, 1996 Dec, IEEE, Fourth International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems depicts in Fig. 1.a “a typical integration architecture”. This figure is analogous to Diagram 2 provided in the Remarks, where the Mediator provides the function of the CDMI unit and each Information Source is functionally analogous to the Medication Search Service Computers.
PNG
media_image1.png
561
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LiHong-MSFT, Query with multiple databases, 2021 Dec 28, Microsoft.com describes:
PNG
media_image2.png
743
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-8 and 10-19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields claims 2-8 and 10-19, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2-8 and 10-19, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-19 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranzley (20130144715) in view of Hinton (US 20220012766) further in view of Gibson (US 20070179957).
Regarding claim 1, Kranzley teaches a system for correlating diverse medication information from a plurality of medication search services comprising:
a system computer accessible by a user computer via a network connection ([0242], “Client Device 02100 can exchange data and/or instructions with one or more Data Processing Systems 01000 through a wireless network and/or a wireline network. Client Device 02100 can be without limitation: (a) a desktop computer; (b) a portable computer;”);
a storage accessible by the system computer including a relational database comprising a lookup table that includes medication information from a first medication search service and from a second medication search service, the medication information selected from the group consisting of: medication name, medication dosage, medication code data, or combinations thereof ([0394], “the CPP can automatically: (a) read any data stored in a Retailer Data Structure on the database server;” [0696], “a Product used after the procedure, e.g., a drug administered after the procedure offered by a first Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a drugstore, and/or a drug offered by Producer Server 02400, e.g., a drug manufacturer which offers its drug through a second Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM")… The second Product, e.g., a drug, can be associated with a Product Identifier which is a member of the NDC Product Class Identifier.” [0095], “A Computer-Readable Medium encoded with a Data Structure can store data in one or more tables of a Relational Database Management System ("RDBMS") in any form, including without limitation” [0094], “ A Data Structure can include a Repository Data Structure storing physical data, including without limitation: repository libraries storing data related to objects and/or object instances, and/or tables to manage the relationships among objects.”). Examiner interprets the first and second Retailer servers, which provide information on drugs, to encompass the first and second medication search services. Furthermore, a table that is read from encompasses a lookup table.
wherein the lookup table maps a drug reference in a first medication search service database with a drug reference in a second medication search service database to provide normalized medication information ([0094], “A Data Structure can include a Repository Data Structure storing physical data, including without limitation: repository libraries storing data related to objects and/or object instances, and/or tables to manage the relationships among objects.” [0095], “A Computer-Readable Medium encoded with a Data Structure can store data in one or more tables of a Relational Database Management System ("RDBMS") in any form” [0709], “The application illustrates how to determine the most probable objective, solution, or outcome, e.g., the most probable word string uttered by a User, the most probable Object of Interest in a User Query, or the most probable Class of Objects… (a) Bayes' theorem, e.g., to express the relationship between two conditional probabilities, and/or to utilize probabilities to classify objects or determine the relationship among Classes of Objects;” [0171], “One or more embodiments of the invention can generate a universal identifier which can enable one or more embodiments of the invention to execute one or more of the following functions ("Universal Product Identifier") including without limitation: (a) uniquely identifying a Product Identifier within one classification system and mapping the identified Product Identifier to the Product Identifier assigned for the same Product in each of one or more other classification systems” [0666], “object of a Universal Product Identifier” [0127], “if an Offer Condition Attribute is a Product Class Condition in a UNI.TM. format classified by the FDA and the Offer Condition Attribute Value is the UNH identifier "362O91TL9D", the Offer is limited to the purchase and/or use of a set of drugs which include the unique ingredient Acetaminophen”);
said storage further includes a profile database comprising user information selected from the group consisting of: name, zip code, user preferences, authentication data, or combinations thereof ([0211], “User means any party querying about a Product of Interest and/or purchasing and/or using a Product.” [0212], “User Class means any class of Users with the same one or more values for an attribute equal or equivalent to an attribute of an Offer limiting the Offer to members of a class of Users.” [0215],” (b) attributes in a geography domain, which can include without limitation: … (2) a mailing address domain whose values can include any data representing a geographical location and/or set of geographic locations, e.g., the zip code identifying a specific geographical location;” [0437], “ User Data Structure 13000A, which can be stored on a Computer-Readable Medium, can receive the one or more User Identifiers and/or the one or more User Class Identifiers from any Data Processing System 01000 including without limitation: (a) Client Device 02100; and/or (b) any Data Processing System 01000 storing a Data Structure including data associated with a program of which the User is a member, e.g., Retailer Server 02300 storing a Data Structure including data specifying that the User is a member of its Loyalty Program, Insurer Server 02700 storing a Data Structure including data specifying that the User is a customer of an Insurer Product, and/or Employer Server 03200 storing a Data Structure including data specifying that the User is an employee of Employer.” [0423], “Authentication Data Structure 10100 can be a Data Structure storing data related to the Authentication of one or more attributes and/or values in Transaction Attribute Value Set 06700, the User, Client Device 02100, one of more Retailer Servers 02300 offering to sell a Product of Interest,…”). Examiner interprets data that specifies a User being a member of a program or customer of a product to encompass user preferences, as user would be more inclined to purchase products that are exclusive to certain programs they belong to, will build loyalty program points, or that users are familiar with.
wherein said system computer comprises software adapted to receive a medication search query from a user computer related to a medication and user information specific to the user, said system computer cross-references the medication search query with the relational database to identify first and second medication search service data using the lookup table and, in response to the medication search query, takes the medication description and cross references it with the table of medication information such that the system computer will then take that cross-referenced information from the lookup table; ([0661], “Method 30000 can recognize the Product of Interest represented by any code and/or text received from Client Device 02100 by applying comparator logic. Comparator logic can recognize the Product of Interest by: (a) comparing the data format of a string extracted from the received code and/or text with data in a Data Structure, which can be stored on a Computer-Readable Medium, specifying different data formats associated with Product Identifiers and/or Universal Product Identifiers; and/or (h) reading the data format specified in a string extracted from the received code and/or text. After determining the data format of the extracted string, the logic can look up the Product associated with the matching string in the identified Product Identifier classification system.” [0194], “Retailer of Interest means a Retailer for which a Client Device 02100 transmits data associated with the Product, e.g., a query if a Retailer offers a Product in which the User of a Client Device 02100 is interested.” [0044], “identify one or more Retailers selling a Product of Interest” [0138], “one or more Retailers, each of which is associated with the Retailer Identifier specified in the Offer Condition Attribute Value… in a second example, if an Offer Condition Attribute is a Retailer Condition in an alphanumeric format and the Offer Condition Attribute Value is a set of Retailer names, Retailer A, Retailer B, and Retailer C, e.g., a set of Retailers in a network of Retailers each of which has agreed to charge a specified price for one or more Products” [0439], “(d) a value in a Retailer domain, e.g., a value indicating that the User is a member of a Loyalty Program offered by the Retailer which can qualify the User for an Offer, e.g., an Offer by the Retailer limited to Users who are members of the Loyalty Program” [0095], “A Computer-Readable Medium encoded with a Data Structure can store data in one or more tables of a Relational Database Management System ("RDBMS") in any form” [0195], “Retailer Product Data Structure means a Data Structure, which can be stored on a Computer-Readable Medium, including a set of data elements associated with one or more Products offered by a Retailer. For example, the data elements can include without limitation: (a) a Product Identifier and/or a Universal Product Identifier;” [0094], “ A Data Structure can include a Repository Data Structure storing physical data, including without limitation: repository libraries storing data related to objects and/or object instances, and/or tables to manage the relationships among objects.”). The Examiner interprets identifying Retailers using their respective identifiers to encompass the medication search service data, as the data is used to identify possible pharmacies (see also [0055] of Applicant specification which recites wherein Walmart is a pharmacy). Thus, the identifiers for Retailers A and B encompasses the first and second medication search service data. Comparison of the input with data structures of a relational database system encompasses cross referencing.
wherein the first medication search service data includes a first medication code and the second medication search service data includes a second medication code, where the first medication code is different than the second medication code ([0668], “One or more embodiments of the invention produces a well-defined, particular, immediate, and real-world benefit to the public because generating and reading a Data Structure of a Product Identifier Set can increase the probability of identifying the selected Product of Interest offered by a plurality of Retailers using different Product classification systems. A single Product of Interest may be associated with a plurality of classes of Product Identifiers, each of which uniquely identifies the single Product of Interest in its own classification system.” [0170], “Product Identifier means any identifier which uniquely identifies a Product within one classification system and/or one or more derivatives. The classification systems can include without limitation: … (k) National Drug Code ("NDC");… The classification systems can include either an original classification system and/or one or more derivatives of the original classification system. For example, a classification system can include the NDC in a 10-digit integer string format and one or more derivatives, e.g., an NDC derivative used by the CMS in an 11-digit integer string format.”);
wherein the system computer, in response to the medication search query, automatically generates a first query comprising the first medication search service data and the user information and automatically generates a second query comprising the second medication search service data and the user information ([0490], “the set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations identified in response to a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?"” [0668], “There are at least three different Product Identifiers for the camera including without limitation: (a) a SKU assigned by Sony.RTM., "DSC-T110/B"; (b) a UPC assigned by Sony.RTM., "027242813366"; (c) an ASIN assigned by a first Retailer, "B004H8FNI0"; and (d) a DPCI assigned by a second Retailer, "056-10-0799". If Method 30000 queries one or more Retailer Product Data Structures 06100 for only the UPC assigned by Sony.RTM. for the camera, it would not identify Retailers which use a Product classification system other than the UPC to classify its Products.” [0670], “At 30005B, Method 30000 can look up one or more Retailer Product Data Structures 06100 to identify a Product offered by each Retailer associated with at least one Product Identifier and/or one Universal Product Identifier in the Product Identifier Set associated with the selected Product of Interest. Method 30000 can query: (a) the one or more Retailer Product Data Structures 06100 within some defined time period following identification of the at least one Product Identifier and/or one Universal Product Identifier; and/or (b) the data from the one or more Retailer Product Data Structures 06100 downloaded to another Data Structure”). Examiner notes that as the search service data is a medication code, creating a query with a retailer product code for the retailer along with patient location data encompasses generation of at least a first and second query containing the first and second search service data and user information.
wherein the first and second queries are transmitted to a first medication search service computer associated with the first medication search service and to a second medication search service computer associated with the second medication search service respectively, where the first and second medication search services are unrelated entities ([0138], “in a second example, if an Offer Condition Attribute is a Retailer Condition in an alphanumeric format and the Offer Condition Attribute Value is a set of Retailer names, Retailer A, Retailer B, and Retailer C, e.g., a set of Retailers in a network of Retailers each of which has agreed to charge a specified price for one or more Products” [0696], “User and/or User of Client Device 02100 can transmit a User Query for a Product or a combination of Products in the form of: …; (b) a Product used after the procedure, e.g., a drug administered after the procedure offered by a first Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a drugstore, and/or a drug offered by Producer Server 02400, e.g., a drug manufacturer which offers its drug through a second Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM").”);
wherein said first medication search service computer provides first medication information associated with third party medication retailers to said system computer in response to the first query and the second mediation search service computer provides second medication information associated with third party medication retailers to said system in response to the second query ([0696], “User and/or User of Client Device 02100 can transmit a User Query for a Product or a combination of Products in the form of: …; (b) a Product used after the procedure, e.g., a drug administered after the procedure offered by a first Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a drugstore, and/or a drug offered by Producer Server 02400, e.g., a drug manufacturer which offers its drug through a second Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM").” [0490], “The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be small in the case of a single Product Identifier limited to a specified distance from the User, e.g., the set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations identified in response to a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?" The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be large in the case of a Product Class with relatively wide ranges for one or more attributes in the specified of Transaction Attribute Value Set 06700.”);
wherein said system computer normalizes and transmits the first and second medication information to the user computer in real time (Fig. 32, [0401], “In another embodiment, Method 07100 does not link Offer Data Structure 06310 and Fund Account 06620. While not having to link them would have fewer setup requirements, the lack of a real-time linkage can increase the probability of generating an error in redeeming a Qualifying Offer. For example, the party making a Qualifying Offer can associate the Offer with an attribute limiting the availability of the Offer, e.g., Offer Available Unit and/or Offer Available Value. Without querying the Offer Data Structure in real-time to determine if there are sufficient Offer Available Units and/or Offer Available Value to qualify the Offer, a Payment Network may Authorize a withdrawal of an Withdrawal Amount when the party making the Qualifying Offer may no longer have available units and/or value of the Offer.”). The Examiner notes that the Offer Combination Window supplies prices in a normalized table format to allow comparison between the three retailers. Furthermore, a description of an optional embodiment that does not perform real time querying indicates that the baseline invention does perform real time querying.
PNG
media_image3.png
471
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kranzley does not teach wherein the medication code data comprises National Drug Code (NDC) identifiers and wherein said system computer normalizes and simultaneously transmits the first and second medication information with the relational database so that comparable data from both the first and second medication search service computers can be simultaneously searched and presented to the user and simultaneously presents a list of prices corresponding to the medication search query.
However, Hinton does teach wherein the queries are transmitted simultaneously ([0073], “Further, the disclosed system may allow the patients to search and compare prices of medications between different drug cards at the same time... This may be achieved by cross-referencing the data (prescription costs from the individual prescription cards) with the prices at different pharmacy locations to ensure the patient can ultimately find the lowest price for their medication within their location with ease simultaneously in a time sensitive manner”).
Kranzley in view of Hinton are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of comparing medication prices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kranzley with Hinton for the advantage of allowing a user to “ensure the patient can ultimately find the lowest price for their medication within their location with ease simultaneously in a time sensitive manner” (Hinton; [0073]).
Although Kranzley teaches wherein a medication code data comprises a National Drug Code (NDC) identifier ([0125], “if an Offer Condition Attribute is a Product Condition in an NDC format and the Offer Condition Attribute Value is a set of NDC identifiers 00071015000:00071015999, the Offer is limited to the purchase and/or use of a set of the drug Lipitor.RTM. in one or more strengths”), Kranzley does not explicitly teach wherein the medication code data comprises National Drug Code (NDC) identifiers.
However, Gibson does teach wherein the medication code data comprises National Drug Code (NDC) identifiers ([0084], “The user provides initial drug information (1250) to drug selector 1210. Search component 1220 uses drug information 1250 to perform a search (1260) of PDPI database 1240. Drugs are identified by a National Drug Code (NDC), which specifies a particular dosage, form, and package. A single "drug" such as Vioxx.RTM. is often available in different dosages, forms (capsule, tablet, etc.), and packages (30 tablet pack, 60 tablet packet, etc.), each with its own NDC. It is common for one "drug" to have dozens of NDCs, and some have hundreds.” [0085], “if the initial drug information 1250 is a name (trade or generic) which corresponds to more than one NDC, then search results 1270 will contain multiple PDPIs, each associated with a different NDC.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the functionality of cross-referencing the same product with different identifiers as taught by Kranzley with the multiple different NDCs for a single drug as taught by Gibson would arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medication querying. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kranzley in view of Hinton with Gibson for the advantage of allowing a user to “search[ing] with regard to …, NDC numbers and the like” (Gibson; [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claim 1, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein the user information is further selected from the group consisting of: date of birth, address, medical information or history, insurance information, or combinations thereof ([0116], “Insurer Customer Data Structure means a Data Structure, which can be stored on a Computer-Readable Medium, including a set of data elements associated with one or more customers of an Insurer. For example, the data elements can include without limitation: (a) a customer identifier; (b) a residential address; and/or (c) one or more prior Transactions.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claim 1, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein said software comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive location information ([0134], “(i) a Geographic Condition limiting the applicability of the Offer to the purchase and/or use of one or more Products in any set of geographic locations specified in the Offer Condition Attribute Value which can include without limitation: (i) the geographic location of the physical store at which a Retailer executes a Transaction; and/or (ii) the geographic location of the shipping address to which the Retailer ships one or more Products in a Transaction;” [0490], “a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?"” [0233], “(f) an Input Device 01400 capable of enabling the input in one or more forms any data and/or instructions, which can include without limitation: a microphone, a keyboard, a pointer, a touch-sensitive display,…” [0340], “Media Device 05200 can display one or more classes of Content, which the application defines any class of data a User can view, hear, or execute any other class of action. Content can include any data displayed on Client Device 02100 produced, sold, and/or distributed by any party including without limitation: a television network, a radio network, and/or a website.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claims 1 and 3, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein the system presents pricing information based in part on the location information ([0490], “The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be small in the case of a single Product Identifier limited to a specified distance from the User, e.g., the set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations identified in response to a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?" The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be large in the case of a Product Class with relatively wide ranges for one or more attributes in the specified of Transaction Attribute Value Set 06700.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claim 1, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein said software comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) adapted to receive the medication information associated with the medication search query ([0242], “Client Device 02100 is a Data Processing System 01000 which can execute one or more of the following functions including without limitation: (a) receiving from one or more Data Processing Systems 01000 data and/or instructions;” [0490], “The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be small in the case of a single Product Identifier limited to a specified distance from the User, e.g., the set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations identified in response to a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?" The set of Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations may be large in the case of a Product Class with relatively wide ranges for one or more attributes in the specified of Transaction Attribute Value Set 06700.” [0696], “User and/or User of Client Device 02100 can transmit a User Query for a Product or a combination of Products in the form of: …; (b) a Product used after the procedure, e.g., a drug administered after the procedure offered by a first Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a drugstore, and/or a drug offered by Producer Server 02400, e.g., a drug manufacturer which offers its drug through a second Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM").”).
Regarding claim 6, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein the GUI comprises a window adapted to receive text ([0490], “a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?"” [0647], “text inputted in any form including without limitation: (i) inputted by the User of Client Device 02100, e.g., a word string typed, written, or inputted in any other form by the User of Client Device 02100, describing or specifying a Product of Interest received by one or more Input Devices 01400, e.g., a keyboard or touch-sensitive display, of Client Device 02100;” [0340], “Media Device 05200 can display one or more classes of Content, which the application defines any class of data a User can view, hear, or execute any other class of action. Content can include any data displayed on Client Device 02100 produced, sold, and/or distributed by any party including without limitation: a television network, a radio network, and/or a website.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claims 1, 5, and 6, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein when the medication search query is entered, the system will dynamically search the database of medications and provide medication options that can be selected based on the entered data ([0490], “a User Query like "what is the lowest Net Price of Product X sold at a store within 1 mile from my location?"” [0647], “Method 17000 can use an exhaustive iterative search through all Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combinations.” [0696], “User and/or User of Client Device 02100 can transmit a User Query for a Product or a combination of Products in the form of: …; (b) a Product used after the procedure, e.g., a drug administered after the procedure offered by a first Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a drugstore, and/or a drug offered by Producer Server 02400, e.g., a drug manufacturer which offers its drug through a second Retailer Server 02300, e.g., a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM").”).
Regarding claim 8, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claim 1, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein the list of prices corresponding to the medication search query further includes pharmacy information selected from the group consisting of: pharmacy name, pharmacy location or distance ([0216], “(d) attributes in a Retailer domain, which can include without limitation: (i) a Retailer party domain whose values can include any data representing a Retailer which can include without limitation: (1) the name of the Retailer; and/or (2) an identifier of the Retailer other than the name, e.g., a MID a Payment Network, Card Association, or an Acquirer Server 02811 assigns to a Retailer or an identifier of the Retailer assigned by a party in a Product Class” [0202], “(i) a Geographic Attribute associated with a Transaction Attribute Value specifying the geographic location of either the physical store at which the Retailer executes a Transaction or a shipping address to which the Retailer ships one or more Products in a Transaction;”).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1. Although Kranzley teaches wherein the first and second medication information is associated with third party retailers, Kranzley only teaches wherein each query is associated with a single retailer each. Hinton further teaches wherein the first and second queries are each associated with multiple third party medication retailers ([0180], “Further, the discount cards may include good RX 2806, Well RX 2808, singlecare 2810, and EasyDrug card 2812. Further, the good RX 2806 may be associated with a price 2814 of $8.77 at Giant pharmacy. Further, the Well RX 2808 may be associated with a price 2816 of $5.41 at Kroger. Further, the singlecare 2810 may be associated with a price 2818 of $9.00 at Walmart. Further, the EasyDrug card 2812 may be associated with a price 2820 of $27.21 at Walmart.” [0074], “if the patient generally prefers a single type of pharmacy, the patient may simply search for the desired pharmacy prices in that area, and likewise for any of the major pharmacy chains.”). Examiner interprets the provision of chain pharmacies to encompass multiple medication retailers, as a chain encompasses several stores rather than just one.
Kranzley in view of Hinton are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of comparing medication prices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kranzley with Hinton for the advantage of “minimize[ing] the amount of time, effort, gas, and energy put towards researching the prices of prescriptions between different discount cards and pharmacies” (Hinton; [0085]).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the method of claims 9 and 15, as described above. Kranzley further teaches wherein the medication options are adapted to be selected by the user (Fig. 32, [0375], “Method 07000 can select for a Transaction a Qualifying Retailer/Offer Combination selected by the user of Client Device 02100 or selected automatically according to a predefined rule.”). Fig. 32 depicts wherein a BUY button is placed below Retailer A, which indicates that Retailer A is adapted to be selected by the user.
PNG
media_image4.png
481
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[No patentable weight is given to the intended use language of “to be selected by the user”]
Regarding claim 18, Kranzley in view of Hinton further in view of Gibson teaches the system of claim 1, as described above. Kranzley does not teach wherein the first medication information provided by the first medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a first group of retail outlets compiled by the first medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the first group; and wherein the second medication information provided by the second medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a second group of retail outlets compiled by the second medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the second group.
However, Hinton does teach wherein the first medication information provided by the first medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a first group of retail outlets compiled by the first medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the first group; and wherein the second medication information provided by the second medication search service computer includes a listing of where the medication can be purchased from a second group of retail outlets compiled by the second medication search service computer and includes a cost for the medication offered by each of the retail outlets in the second group ([0157], “FIG. 23, the first tab may be incorporated within the second list. More specifically, the plurality of offers allows the user to choose to see all prices through a selected prescription card input dictated by the second search.” [0072], “The patient may be allowed access to not only compare medication prices between pharmacies like some prescription cards offer” [0009], “There are always well-known discount cards names such as GoodRx, Blink Health, or Singlecare.” [0070], “FIG. 28, Kroger through WellRx had the lowest prices for a good amount of prescriptions.”). Fig. 23, below, displays the same functionality of providing a filter to display the results of the prescription card/medication service, in a way that is analogous to [0044] of Applicant specification (“Referring to FIG. 2B, if the SingleCare option was selected the user is presented with an option to login or register with SingleCare 224... The user will then be presented with cost information for the medication that was previously searched 230.”). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that selecting different prescription cards/medication services, such as GoodRX or Singlecare, would result in a first and second medication information comprising a listing of where medication can be purchased from different groups of retail outlets compiled by each service computer with their respective prices.
PNG
media_image5.png
484
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Fig. 28, below, shows comparison options between the different prescription cards/medication services in a manner that is functionally analogous to Fig. 8 of the instant application.
PNG
media_image6.png
714
601
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kranzley in view of Hinton are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of comparing medication prices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kranzley with Hinton for the advantage of allowing a user to “compare medication prices between pharmacies like some prescription cards offer” (Hinton; [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18, as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571)270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights