Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 12-19 has been reviewed and are addressed below. Claims 10-11 has been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-7-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicants amendment filed on 1-7-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended claims is not directed to a server or a computer network but instead is directed to a system of many different elements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim still recites generic computer components to execute the abstract idea, for example, the prescription verification system according to applicant’s specifications, in paragraph 25 “prescription verification system can comprise a computer, a pharmacist, or both”.
Applicant argue that the examiner has erred by overlooking the physical, tangible, structural components of the system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The walk up service center is just the location where the certain methods of organizing human activity is performed. Tangibility of an additional element is not the bar to overcome an abstract idea. The different additional elements are used to either gather data and execute the abstract idea. Additionally, a system does not always indicate as a physical system, case in point applicant’s own specification in paragraph 25 that the “prescription verification system can comprise a computer, a pharmacist, or both”, meaning it can be just a person performing the verification.
Applicant argues that the examiner has erred since the claims are not method steps and a home dialysis machine is a very specific machine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A home dialysis machine in this claim is used to deliver a dialysate to a user, which is what a home dialysis machine is supposed to do. There is no personalized dosing based on user’s analyzed data.
Applicant argues that example 32 the instant claim is arranged in a particular way to optimize efficiency of the system while maintaining prescription verification and delivery related to a home dialysis machine and a prescription to be fulfilled therefor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 32 pertains to an actual machine that makes paper. The instant claim does not make any physical product.
Applicant argues that the instant claim is similar to Example 36, Claim 3 since it comprises video cameras, memory and a processor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 36 Claim 3 indicated in their specifications that the combination of the camera array’s acquisition of high resolution image sequences, and the processor’s performance of step (b)’s extracting contour and character information from the images to create feature vectors, step (c)’s recognizing and tracking items of inventory using the feature vectors and a recognition model, and step (d)’s determining the physical location of the recognized items using the position of the item in the image sequence(s) is not well‐understood, routine, conventional activity in this field. The application does not recite such problem in the specifications, rather applicant’s own specification recites that some of the analysis can be performed by a person.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claims recite a home dialysis machine system, however there is no support for such a specific “system”.
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.
Claim 1-9, 12-19 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.
Claim 1-9, 12-19 is drawn to a system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, recite “verify a prescription for dialysate to be used with the home dialysis machine”, “enable a user to receive a prescription for dialysate”, “generate a patient information signal pertaining to one or more patient parameters resulting from a treatment of a patient”, “wirelessly transmit a patient information signal to the physician”, “receiving the patient information signal and transmitting prescription information that is based on the patient information signal”, “receiving the prescription information”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “certain method of human activity” since it falls under grouping of abstract ideas, specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “home dialysis machine system”, “at least one of the one or more walk-up service centers comprises a pharmacy and the pharmacy comprises at least one of dialysate, concentrated dialysate, powdered dialysate, and packets of electrolytes formulated to mix with water to form dialysate”, “a prescription verification system”, “a prescription delivery system”, “a pharmacy computer processor”, “at least one of the one or more walk-up service centers comprises an interface”, “user interface”, “physician computer processer”, “home dialysis machine comprises a processor, transmitter and a receiver” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “deliver the prescription for dialysate to a user for whom the prescription for dialysate has been prescribed” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at:
• paragraph 51, where home dialysis machine is linked to a walk-up service center, a doctor's office, a pharmacy, a scheduling service, and a clinic or hospital, through the internet and wireless, cloud-based computing and communication”.
Paragraph 25 recites “the prescription verification system can comprise a pharmacy computer processor, and the transmitter of the home dialysis machine or the home computer can be configured to wirelessly transmit a patient information signal to the physician computer processor”.
The claims recite the additional element of “deliver the prescription for dialysate to a user for whom the prescription for dialysate has been prescribed” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 12-19 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684