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 Amendment filed July 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 have been amended by supplemental amendment provided on July 11, 2025. Claim 3-8 and 11-19 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 7, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 11, 2024 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 Two, Applicant argues that the relational database, which includes a table, and simultaneous transmission to two different medication search services comprise a practical application that are beyond an insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.” There is no indication in Applicant specification that describes an improvement to relational databases and data storage architectures. Rather, the usage of relational databases is more akin to “apply it”; see MPEP 2106.05(f), which describes additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception (i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Examiner submits 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. Thus, Applicant’s application of an existing technology is also considered to be “apply it”.
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
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the ability to automatically translate a single query into multiple different queries comprising different data based on a relational database and simultaneously transmit the query to multiple different targets is something the industry has not been able to obtain. Therefore, the claimed invention represents an ordered combination that is unconventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees as searching multiple databases using a single query is known within the art, as described with references (a), (b), and (c), above.
Applicant argues 35 USC §102 Rejections, pg. 14 of Remarks:
Applicant argues Kranzley does not teach the amended claim limitations. Although the teachings of Kranzley may be configured to simultaneously transmit the first and second medication information under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as argued on pg. 7 of the Final Rejection supplied on February 7, 2025, Examiner provides additional art to address the amended limitations in the interest of compact prosecution. 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 table of data 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, and a profile database including user information selected from the group consisting of: name, zip code, user preferences, authentication data, or combinations thereof;
the system computer cross-referencing the medication search query with the relational database to identify first and second medication search service data;
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;
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 and simultaneously transmitting the first and second medication information to the user computer in real time.
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:
a system computer, a network, a storage, a relational database, a profile database, a user computer, first medication search service computer, second medication search service computer (1); A graphic user interface (3)
The Examiner notes that the independent claims teach insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving, transmitting, and simply presenting data. See also MPEP §2106.05(g).
The Examiner further notes that any and all computing devices (computer, computing device, server, and processor) 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.
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 mental processes, such as 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).
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 table of data 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”). Examiner interprets the first and second Retailer servers, which provide information on drugs, to encompass the first and second medication search services.
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 ([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;”). 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 explicitly recite wherein the queries are transmitted simultaneously.
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]).
Regarding claim 2, Kranzley in view of Hinton 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 me