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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 12/03/2025 for application 18/674443.
Claims 1-20, 22, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34, 39, have been canceled.
Claims 21, 30, and 38 have been amended.
Claims 41-43 have been added new.
Claims 21-23, 26-30, 32, 35-38, and 40-43 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 21-23, 26-30, 32, 35-38, and 40 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.
Step 1:
Claims 21-23, 26-30, 32, 35-38, and 40 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 21, 30, and 38 recite identifying one or more drug wasting events, identifying a possible drug misappropriation event from the drug wasting events, determine a level of deviation of each of the plurality of drug wasting events; and determining a priority of each of the plurality of drug wasting events; The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. 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 a computer, distributed analytics system, and a GUI, 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. 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 receiving drug dispensing data and causing to display one or more alerts, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. 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 Figure 1, and
Paragraph 10, where “In yet another aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for presenting electronic patient data accessing information is provided. The code includes code for receiving data related to a plurality of access events, by one or more employees, of electronic patient data, determining a set of access events of the plurality of access events constitute, by the one or more employees, possible breach of the electronic patient data, and providing an alert related to the set of access events based on determining that the set of access events constitute possible breach of the electronic patient data.”
Paragraph 32, where “As used herein, the terms ?element,? ?module,? ?component,? and ?system? may refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution. For example, a module may be, but is not limited to being, a machine-executable process running on a processor, a processor, an object, a thread of execution, a machine-executable program, and/or a computer. By way of illustration, both a process running on a server and the server may be a module or a component. One or more modules or components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution. In some implementations, a module may be localized on one computer and/or distributed among two or more computers.”
Paragraph 9, where “The apparatus includes at least one processor configured to perform various operations. The at least one processor can be configured to receive data related to a plurality of access events, by one or more employees, of electronic patient data, determine a set of access events of the plurality of access events constitute, by the one or more employees, possible breach of the electronic patient data, and provide an alert related to the set of access events based on determining that the set of access events constitute possible breach of the electronic patient data. The apparatus also includes a memory coupled to the at least one processor.”
Paragraph 62, where “The alert may allow a professional to receive the alert and further investigate the alert to determine whether a possible breach of the electronic patient data has occurred and/or to remediate the possible breach. In an example, the further investigation can be facilitated by indications on interfaces presented by the data presenting component 130 that relate to rules of rule applying component 134, data patterns from data patterning component 136, etc. as described further herein.”
The claims recite the additional element of receiving drug dispensing data and displaying one or more alerts, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering or displaying. 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).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
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) 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, and 40-43 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amendments over come the cited art of record. Specifically the references fail to teach “applying a plurality of patterns to the plurality of drug wasting events; based on the applying the plurality of patterns to the plurality of drug wasting events, identifying a first pattern of the plurality of patterns to which the plurality of drug wasting events relate; determining a level of deviation of each the plurality of drug wasting events from the first pattern; and determining a priority of each of the plurality of drug wasting events based on the respective level of deviation. Gupta is relied upon teach for teaching if the medication is dispensed but not administered to the patient. Leibon is relied upon for analyzing activities by ranking them. The references fail to teach “applying a plurality of patterns to the plurality of drug wasting events; based on the applying the plurality of patterns to the plurality of drug wasting events, identifying a first pattern of the plurality of patterns to which the plurality of drug wasting events relate; determining a level of deviation of each the plurality of drug wasting events from the first pattern; and determining a priority of each of the plurality of drug wasting events based on the respective level of deviation”.
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The applicant argues that the claims are directed to concrete systems and methods for processing drug dispensing data to determine a drug wasting. The claims can be performed without human intervention and do not “manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards receiving and analyzing data by following rules or instructions which are directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687