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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-13 are rejected herein.
Priority
This application claims priority at least to application KR 10-2021-0045325, KR 1020210045324, and KR 10-20210045323 and therefore this application has a priority date equivalent to the filing date of 07 April 2021.
Distinguishable Subject Matter
Relevant to claim 1, the prior art does not teach the specific timings of counters applied to vaccination identification codes. Relevant to claim 5, the specification of the vaccine inoculation suitability information is not received until the second counter is terminated is subject matter free of prior art. Relevant to claim 6, the prior art does not address: “before the second waiting step after the first determination step of determining whether it is suitable to inoculate the specific vaccine corresponding to the vaccine identification information into the specific subject person based on the previous inoculation history of the specific subject person acquired in the inoculation history acquisition step, before the merged information transmission step after the second determination step, wherein the merged information transmission step is performed only (emphasis added) when it is determined that it is suitable to inoculate the specific vaccine to the specific subject person in the vaccine inoculation suitability determination step.” Relevant to claim 12, the prior art does not disclose the byte specification of the merged data. Relevant to claims 7 and 8, the prior art does not disclose “…and a second determination step of determining, when a second identification code is recognized in the second waiting step, whether the second identification code is the vaccine identification code, and in the transmitting the merged data to the management server, the vaccine management device transmits the merged data to the management server only (emphasis added) when the first identification code is the inoculation subject person identification code and the second identification code is the vaccine identification code.” The claims that depend on claim 1,7 and 8 are also subject matter free of prior art.
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 1,3-12 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.
Claims 1,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Categories
The claim recites an operating method of a vaccine management device including an identification code recognition unit, a vaccine management system, a vaccine healthcare solution providing method for information retrieval, which are within a statutory category (or are interpreted to be within a statutory category for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes).
Step 2A1: Abstract Idea
The limitations of (claim 8 being representative): collecting […] from an inoculation subject person, basic information of the inoculation subject person; generating […] an inoculation subject person identification code based on the basic information of the inoculation subject person; transmitting […] the inoculation subject person identification code […]; sequentially […reading…] the inoculation subject person identification code output […] and a vaccine identification code provided in a vaccine; transmitting […], merged data including inoculation subject person information de-identification data acquired from the inoculation subject person identification code and vaccine information data acquired from the vaccine identification code; generating […] a vaccine inoculation history of the inoculation subject person based on the inoculation subject person information de-identification data and the vaccine information data; and transmitting […] a vaccine inoculation history message including the vaccine inoculation history, wherein, in the sequentially scanning the inoculation subject person identification code the vaccine identification code [...] a first waiting step of waiting […for….] recognition of an identification code, a first determination step of determining, when a first identification code is recognized in the first waiting step, whether the first identification code is the inoculation subject person identification code, a second waiting step of waiting, when the first identification code is the inoculation subject person identification code, recognition of the vaccine identification code, and a second determination step of determining, when a second identification code is recognized in the second waiting step, whether the second identification code is the vaccine identification code, wherein, in the transmitting the merged data […], the […transmitting entity…] transmits the merged data to [… an receiving entity…] only when the first identification code is the inoculation subject person identification code and the second identification code is the vaccine identification code […] as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components and as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a vaccine management system, a management server, at least one vaccine management device, inoculation subject person terminal and inoculation subject terminal, management server and vaccine management device the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people and nothing in the claim precludes steps from being practically performed in the mind.
For example, but for the additional elements listed above, this claim encompasses a person generating, merging and transmitting inoculation person subject data in the context of an vaccination scenario in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The abstract idea will be treated as a single abstract idea and will not be parsed.
Step 2A2: Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a vaccine management system, a management server, at least one vaccine management device, inoculation subject person terminal and an inoculation subject terminal, management server and vaccine management device that implements the identified abstract idea. These are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claims recite a bar code, QR code. The bar code and QR code generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly More
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a vaccine management system, a management server, at least one vaccine management device, inoculation subject person terminal and inoculation subject terminal, management server and vaccine management device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
The independent claims recite a bar code, QR code. The bar code and QR code generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Dependent Claims and Dependent Additional Elements
Claims 2,4-6 and 9-12 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) when the first identification code is the vaccine identification code, outputting a first notification for notifying that the first identification code is a wrong identification code, and operating by returning to the first waiting step. Claim 4 merely describes in the merged information transmission step, a second counter counting a second specific time after transmitting the data obtained by merging the subject person identification information and the vaccine identification information is operated, and after the merged information transmission step, further comprising: a suitability waiting step of waiting reception of vaccine inoculation suitability information indicating whether it is suitable to inoculate a specific vaccine corresponding to the vaccine identification information into a specific subject person corresponding to the subject person identification information until the second counter is terminated; and a vaccine inoculation suitability notification step of outputting a notification for the vaccine inoculation suitability information. Claim 5 merely descries in the suitability waiting step, when the vaccine inoculation suitability information is not received until the second counter is terminated. Claim 6 merely describes an inoculation history acquisition step of acquiring a previous inoculation history of the specific subject person corresponding to the subject person identification information based on the subject person identification information, before the second waiting step after the first determination step; and a vaccine inoculation suitability determination step of determining whether it is suitable to inoculate the specific vaccine corresponding to the vaccine identification information into the specific subject person based on the previous inoculation history of the specific subject person acquired in the inoculation history acquisition step, before the merged information transmission step after the second determination step, wherein the merged information transmission step is performed only when it is determined that is suitable to inoculate the specific vaccine into the specific subject person in the vaccine inoculation suitability determination step. Claim 9 merely describes transmitting a vaccine inoculation self-diagnosis questionnaire at a second time point of transmitting the vaccine inoculation history message; transmitting the vaccine inoculation self-diagnosis questionnaire created by the inoculation subject person; calculating a self-diagnosis result based on the created vaccine inoculation self-diagnosis questionnaire; and transmitting, the calculated self-diagnosis result. Claim 10 merely describes wherein collecting the basic information of the inoculation subject person includes: scanning a unform resource locator (URL) identification code, collecting the basic information of the inoculation subject person from the inoculation subject person. Claim 11 merely describes in the generating the inoculation subject person identification code, identifies the basic information of the inoculation subject person from the inoculation subject person information de-identification data. Claim 12 merely describes in the transmitting the merged data, capacities of the inoculation subject person information de-dentification data and the vaccine information data included in the merged data are 28 to 70 bytes.
The dependent claims recite a vaccine management device, inoculation subject person terminal, a management server and basic information collection interface. The vaccine management device, inoculation subject person terminal and management server have been determined to be generic computational devices and are analyzed in the same manner as the generic computational devices were in the independent claims. The basic information collection interface generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
The independent claims are herein amended to particularly recite “an identification code scanner” and “wherein each of the (inoculation) subject person identification code and the vaccine identification code is a bar code or a QR code.” Bar code and QR code are emphasized. As amended, Applicant asserts, the claims recite physical and tangible “things,” and the claimed subject matter cannot be practically performed in the human mind nor reasonably characterized as organizing human activity. Rather, the claimed invention is directed to a particular practical application involving tangible structures and real-world interactions. Accordingly, the claimed method and system constitute a practical application with real-world utility and, therefore, are not abstract.
The bar code and QR code are additional elements and were deemed to be generally linking. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
The abstract idea has been identified in the 35 U.S.C.101 rejection above as a single abstract idea for the sake of analysis. The MPEP indicates the Examiner’s are not to parse the claim. Nonetheless, the Examiner maintains that the limitations recited are categorizable as a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity.
Note that the use of the term abstract here of course does not coincide with the certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes nor mathematical concepts groupings as they are outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas. Tangible structures and real world interactions are necessarily not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception nor to provide significantly more, as the tangible structures could be, of course, instructions to implement the abstract idea with generic computer parts, and the real world interactions could be part of the abstract idea, depending on how they are recited.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections because the cited references, either individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest inter alia, “the second waiting step is performed only until the first counter is terminated after the first specific time elapsed, wherein when the vaccine identification code is not recognized until the first counter is terminated, the subject person identification information is discarded and the vaccine management device operates by returning to the first waiting step” (emphasis added), in amended claim 1 and “the vaccine management device transmits the merged data to the management server only when the first identification code is the inoculation subject person identification code and the second identification code is the vaccine identification code” (emphasis added), in amended claims 7 and 8.
The argument is moot. The rejection has been withdrawn as a result of the incorporation of subject matter free of prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art of note but not relied upon:
Hartman, T., Howell, M.D., Dean, J. et al. Customization scenarios for de-identification of clinical notes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 20, 14 (2020). Hartman teaches one way of de-identifying patient data.
US 11281194 B1 (hereafter Fernando) teaches a laboratory results portal for immune pathway management.
US 20150254426 A1 (hereafter Glazer) teaches a method and apparatus for preparing medications for administration to subject that is tangentially relevant to administering vaccines.
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 TRISTAN ISAAC EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-5972. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-7:00pm, off Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.I.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights