DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed April 21, 2026 and request for continued examination filed May 15, 2026. Applicant’s April 21st amendment amended claims 1, 27 and 28 and canceled claims 4, 16-19, 21, 23, 26, 29-64. Currently claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 are pending. Claims 1, 27 and 28 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 27, and 28 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims, however a new grounds of rejection has been applied (Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 as in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391, in view of Forster, U.S. Patent No. 12525107).
Applicant's amendments to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, Claim 3 (Remarks: Second to Last Paragraph, Page 9), the claims recite an improvement in scanning technology (e.g. deep scans to collect performance data, improves how scanner hardware operates; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9); and the claims cannot be performed manually (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 10).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., applying a trained machine learning model to generate performance metrics, automatically adjust scanning parameters - Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9; Paragraph 1, Page 10; performance AND readability, health of data tags, degrading, underperforming, failing misconfigured tags, etc. Remarks:, Last Two Paragraphs, Page 11) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner strongly suggest Applicant amend the claims to positively recite the argued features noted above. Amending the claims to include these features may likely overcome the applied art. An examiner interview may prove helpful.
In response to Applicant's argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, claim 3, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, claim 3, is directed to a system and method that utilizes an trained artificial neural network to identify/detect and drop malicious network packets in real-time wherein the trained ANN detects anomalies in network traffic more accurately than traditional network anomaly detection methods and provides for faster training times. The claimed invention is directed to providing a technical solution to a technical problem. More specifically providing, similar to the findings in DDR, "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Further that the invention established an "inventive concept" for resolving an Internet-centric problem.
In sharp contrast to SME 47, claim 3, the pending claims do not recite a network of any kind. The claims do not recite a neural network, machine learning or artificial intelligence of any kind. More specifically the claims do not recite utilizing a trained ANN to identify/detect and drop malicious network packets in real-time (technical solution to a technical problem) and therefore is nothing like SME 47, Claim 3.
The instant application remains directed to inventory management comprising adjusting an scan parameter of a scanner of data tags of medication stored in a medication station/compartment – a business problem, not a technical problem, not a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology, not a solution to overcome a problem arising from the realm of computer networks.
As suggested above, Applicant is encouraged to incorporate the use of machine learning/neural networks as disclosed in Applicant’s specification to more closely align the claims with SME 47, Claim 3.
Should Applicant amend the claims to positively recite the use of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence examiner suggests Applicant review the recently posted 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to those found patentable in Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, claim 3 and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite an improvement to scanning technology/scanner hardware, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to a well-known business practice – inventory management – in this the claims are directed to adjusting based on the performance metric OR classifying a scan parameter of the scanner configured to perform deep scans and transmitting an indication associated with the performance of the data tag (Claims 1 and 28) or receiving by the scanner a control signal causing an adjustment of the scanning of a plurality of data tags by the scanner (Claim 27).
Claim 27 does not recite readability. Claim 27 does not recite classifying the performance of the plurality of tags. As such Applicant’s arguments related to tag readability and/or the classification of tag performance are not applicable to claim 27. Examiner suggests Applicant amend the independent claims to be of commensurate scope.
As applicant’s disclosure makes clear the intended purpose/benefit of the invention is to improve the accuracy of inventory tracking cause by inaccurate inventory scans (see at least: Specification: Paragraphs 4, 47) – this is a business solution to a business problem. Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there a discussion of technical problems associated with scanners or with data tags, much alone a technical solution for addressed technical problems associated with scanners or with data tags. While Applicant’s disclosure discussed that inventory scans maybe inaccurate due to damaged, degrading, or failing tags or improperly placed data tags and the like nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion on how to prevent damaged, degrading, or failing tags or how to solve specific technical problems associated with damaged, degrading, or failing tags or the like. At best the claims provide for adjusting scanning parameters, of a stock/commercially available/unmodified (i.e. generic) scanner, to allow for better inventory tracking (Specification: Paragraph 48). The scanner is not improved in any way. A person, operating the scanner for example, is more than capable of adjusting scanning parameters (e.g. pick a different scanner, change the length/frequency/interval of scans, change the scan path or the like).
While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of inventory management and/or medical storage and distribution (a well-known economic practice, not a technical field) they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent an improvement in any of the underlying technologies (e.g. scanner, processor, memory, data tag, medication station) as argued.
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and displaying data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s inventory management in the general field of medical storage and distribution and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention improves the improves the performance of deep scans in medication storage and distribution systems and/or improves field of medical storage/distribution, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Medical storage and distribution is not a technical field – it is a well-known, routine and conventional business/economic process performed well-prior to the advent of computers. As discussed above the phrase "deep scan" as defined in Specification Paragraph 66, see below, is merely a periodic (recurring, repeated) scan (reading) of a tag when the medical station is not being accessed (e.g. not open, not in use, in the background, inactive, etc.) OR any scan lasting more than a scan threshold length (i.e. more than a couple of seconds). Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion at any level that deep scans, as defined by Applicant, improve the functioning of the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, data tag, etc.) or improvement another technical field or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. At best deep scans may provide improved inventory accuracy which is an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 4, this paragraph discloses that inventory scans may be inaccurate for a variety of reasons (damaged tags, improperly placed tags, not claimed) and that it may difficult to determine inventory of an item that is measure inaccurately (not claimed), when or how to correct the positioning of tags (not claimed) and the like. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, user interface, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field (medication storage and distribution is not a technical field) and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 49-55, these paragraphs disclose an intended benefit of the system is to improve the accuracy or data tags and performance of medication stations utilizing deep scans or combination of deep scans and inventory scans (e.g. background scans – not claimed), that the performance metrics may be displayed via a dashboard and/or provide an alert, that the system may identify weak/degrading tags, collect drawer statistics and based on the day may adjust or suggest adjustments to one or more scan parameters, that the system may present additional insights into performance the performance of the medication station and the like. These paragraphs, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, user interface, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field (medication storage and distribution is not a technical field) and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea/cannot be performed manually, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are rejected as being ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an well-known economic practice (organizing human activity, MPEP2160.04(a)(2)(II) – see discussion above) as well as being directed to a method process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of inventory management and/or medication storage, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (data processor, data tag, scanner, memory, display, etc.).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving scan data associated with a deep scan may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of generating a performance metric indicating a performance OR readability of the plurality of data may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of classifying the performance of the plurality of data tags may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement (Claims 1, 28 only). The step of adjusting based on the performance metric OR classifying a scan parameter may be performed in the human mind via opinion wherein a person is more than capable of selected a scanner or adjusting a scan path or adjusting a scanning interval/frequency or scanning length.
The recitation of a scanner and medication station, each used for their conventional, routine, and ordinary purposes purposes of controlling, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the scanner and medication station as tools to perform an otherwise mental process. The scanner and medication station are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic ‘scanner and medication station. Further the adjusting step is results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Other than the recitation of a data processor, memory, scanner, and medication station nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, generic sensors, and/or generic control devices. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited technology (processor, memory, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receiving receiving scan data, transmitting an indication (Claims 1, 28), transmitting scan data, receiving a control signal (Claim 27) which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than sending/receiving data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
More specifically, the claims are directed to an inventory management system and method comprising a plurality of data tags located within a medication station and a scanner wherein a scan parameter is adjusted based on the performance OR readability of the data tags (e.g. scanner selection or scan length/frequency/interval or scan path). Each of the data processor, memory, scanner and medication station are used for the conventional and routine purposes wherein as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g. inventory management, scanning data tags, etc.) will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As noted previously Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 66, below, defines the phrase “deep scan”, wherein the examiner has adopted Applicant’s deep scan definition for the purposes of examination.
[0066] A “deep scan” refers to a scan of the data tags associated with the medication performed when the medication station 102 is not being accessed, such as at predetermined time intervals, at a predetermined time (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween) after the inventory scan, and/or at a predetermined time (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween) after the medication station 102 is accessed. In other words, the deep scans can be performed according to a periodic schedule. Additionally or alternatively, the “deep scan” is a scan of the data tags associated with the item that has a scan length that is greater than or equal to a threshold scan length (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween). Thus, the deep scans are performed slowly to determine a performance of the data tags which can also be used to identify performance of other elements of the system.
Examiner further notes that performing deeps scans within storage is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following previously cite references: Butler et al., U.S. Patent No. 9953193 - periodic reading/scanning of ID tabs within environment (aircraft, medical equipment) - DETX 461, 576, 586); Russell et al., U.S. Patent No. 9378484 inventory, RFID tags, within compartments/inventory holders - reader station - read RFID tags based on time period threshold, percent of tags read or other similar thresholds (DETX 19); periodic reading of tags DETX 33, read/scan within storage/container Figure 14, DETX 129); and Elizondo, U.S. Patent No. 20140184391 (see detailed discussion 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 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 27 and 28, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of inventory management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, inventory management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to adjust the performance metric of a scanner OR transmit an indication associated with the performance of a plurality of tags, wherein inventory management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “generating”, “classifying”, “adjusting, and “transmitting” (Claims 1, 27) OR “scanning”, “generating”, “transmitting”, and “receiving” (Claim 27) recite functions of the inventory management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 27 and 28 appears adjust a scan parameter of a scanner and transmit an indication associated with the performance of a plurality of data tags.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station. These generic computing components are merely used to receive, scan, process, transmit or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 8). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's inventory management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in MPEP 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generating a performance metric, classifying the performance of the plurality of data tags and adjusting a scan parameter all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving scan data and/or scanning are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of transmitting an indication associated with the performance of the plurality of tags is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, and 25, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of inventory management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 27 and 28.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by selecting the scanner from a plurality of scanners (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the deep scan parameter to ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by performing a ‘deep’ scan to assess the performance of a plurality of data tags (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by dynamically adjusting an inventory scan setting and determining an medications inventory within the medication station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits he abstract idea by limiting the indication to indicate ONE or more of a failure of at least one data tag, an unacceptable degradation of one of the data tags, improper placement of the data tag OR failure of the scanner (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by comparing the performance metric to a prior/baseline metric and determining the metric does not correspond to the prior/baseline performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by generating a prediction of a failure of at least ONE of the data tags and wherein the indication comprises the prediction (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by detecting and logging use of an unauthorized tag (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea to recommending positioning of one of the tags, performance a maintenance check on the tags and adjusting the deep scan parameter (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by determining the performance metric fails a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by receiving updated scanner data and generating an updated performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by adjusting deep scan parameter based on the updated performance metric OR transmitting the updated performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by request ONE or more of a barcode scan or key access to medication station OR witness to view a user accessing the station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 20 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the scan data to ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by coupling the tags to medication stored in the station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by associating the performance metric with a first station, comparing the performance metric of the first station to the performance metric of a second station and displaying information representing the presentation (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 25 further limits the abstract idea by associating the performance metric with a first medical facility, comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication station at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a data processor, memory, data tag, scanner, user interface, and medication stations merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 and further in view of Forster, U.S. Patent No. 12525107.
Regarding Claim 1 Carson et al. discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Receiving from a scanner of a medication station (Figures 1, 2, 11) scan data associated with a scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within the medication station (Figure 16);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric (value, data, etc.) indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714); and
Adjusting, based on the performance metric a scan parameter of the scanner (e.g. number of scans, re-label etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6) OR transmitting based on the performance metric an indication associated with the plurality of data tags (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scans as claimed.
For the purposes of examination, the phrase "deep scan" as defined in Specification Paragraph 66, see above, is any scanner/scan performed periodically OR any scan lasting more than a scan than a couple of seconds (see discussion above).
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising:
Receiving, from a scanner of a medication station located within components of the medication station (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), scan data associated with a deep scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within components of the medication station, wherein the deep scan is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and comprises a scan of the plurality of data tags when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1);
Adjusting, based on the performance metric, a scan parameter of the scanner of the plurality of data tags configured to perform deep scans (Paragraphs 20, 22).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from performing locating the scanner within the station and to perform deep scans in view of the disclosure of Elizondo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Carson et al. does not disclose classifying based on the performance metric the performance of the data tags as claimed.
Forster, from the same field of endeavor of inventory management, discloses a system and method comprising: classifying, based on a performance metric, the performance of a plurality of data tags by comparing the performance metric to a threshold (e.g. difficult to read, etc.; Column 5, Lines 57-68; Column 6, Lines 1-5; Column 7, Lines 1-25); and adjusting ONE or more of a selection of the scanner OR a length of the deep scan OR a scanning path OR a frequency OR a scanning interval (e.g. reader frequency) based on the read performance of a data tag (RFID).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. and Elizondo would have benefited from classifying the performance of a plurality of data tags as well as adjusting one or more scan parameters such as scan frequency/interval in view of the disclosure of Forster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 27, Carson et al. discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Scanning by a scanner of a medication station scan data associated with a scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within the medication station (Figures 1, 2, 11; Figure 15, Element 36; Abstract; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 23, Lines 15-25; Claim 1);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714);
Transmitting, by the scanner, the scan data (Figure 15; Column 22, Lines 60-68; Column 23, Lines 1-12); and
Receiving, by the scanner, a control signal causing adjustment of the scanning of the plurality of data tags by the scanner (e.g. print new label, re-label, etc.; Column 4, Lines 12-28; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scans as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising:
Scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), by a scanner of a medication station located within compartments of the medical station, a plurality of data tags coupled to a plurality of medications positioned within the medication station (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), wherein the scanning is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and comprises a scan of the plurality of data tags when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1);
Generating, by the scanner and during the scanning, scan data associated with the scanning, wherein the scan data is associated with a deep scan of the plurality of data tags positioned within compartments of the medication station (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Carson et al. does not disclose that the adjusting of the scanning comprises adjusting ONE or more of a selection of the scanner OR a length of the deep scan OR a scanning path OR a frequency OR a scanning interval as claimed.
Forster, from the same field of endeavor of inventory management, discloses a system and method comprising: classifying, based on a performance metric, the performance of a plurality of data tags by comparing the performance metric to a threshold (e.g. difficult to read, etc.; Column 5, Lines 57-68; Column 6, Lines 1-5; Column 7, Lines 1-25); and adjusting a scan parameter includes adjusting ONE or more of a selection of the scanner OR a length of the deep scan OR a scanning path OR a frequency OR a scanning interval (e.g. reader frequency) based on the read performance of a data tag (RFID).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. and Elizondo would have benefited from adjusting one or more scan parameters such as scan frequency/interval in view of the disclosure of Forster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 28, Carson et al. discloses a medication station, system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Scanning a data tag coupled to a medication stored in the medication station scan (Abstract; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 23, Lines 15-25; Claim 1) wherein the medication station includes a scanner configured to scan the data tag (Figure 15, Element 36);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714); and
Adjusting, based on the performance metric a scan parameter of the scanner (e.g. number of scans, re-label etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6) OR transmitting based on the performance metric an indication associated with the plurality of data tags (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scaning as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising:
Deep scanning a data tag coupled to a medication stored in a compartment of the medication station (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), wherein the medication station includes a scanner configured to scan the data tag (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), wherein the deep scan is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1); and
Generating, during the deep scanning, scan data associated with the scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Carson et al. does not disclose classifying based on the performance metric the performance of the data tags as claimed.
Forster, from the same field of endeavor of inventory management, discloses a system and method comprising: classifying, based on a performance metric, the performance of a plurality of data tags by comparing the performance metric to a threshold (e.g. difficult to read, etc.; Column 5, Lines 57-68; Column 6, Lines 1-5; Column 7, Lines 1-25); and adjusting ONE or more of a selection of the scanner OR a length of the deep scan OR a scanning path OR a frequency OR a scanning interval (e.g. reader frequency) based on the read performance of a data tag (RFID).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. and Elizondo would have benefited from classifying the performance of a plurality of data tags as well as adjusting one or more scan parameters such as scan frequency/interval in view of the disclosure of Forster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan parameter comprises a selection of the scanner as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method wherein a scan parameter comprises a selection of a scanner from the plurality of scanners of the medication station to scan at least one data tag from a plurality of data tags (Paragraphs 26, 27, 32; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising performing a ‘deep’ scan to asses the performance of a plurality of data (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714; Figure 15).
Regarding Claim 6, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein dynamically adjusting an inventory scan setting, the inventory scan determining an inventory of a plurality of medications within the medication stations after the medication station is access, wherein each of the plurality of data tags are coupled to a corresponding medication of the plurality of medications (Column 24, Lines 15-33; Colum 36, Lines 60-68; Column 37, Lines 1-35; Figure 20).
Regarding Claim 7, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein the indication indicates ONE or more failure of at least one data tag, an unacceptable degradation of one of the data tags, improper placement of the data tag OR failure of the scanner (Figure 23, Element 714; Figure 16 -0 output error/correct label; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17).
Regarding Claim 11, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising recommending positioning of one of the tags (e.g. remove/replace/re-label; Column 4, Lines 12-27; Column 7, Lines 45-68; Column 8, Lines 1-18), performance a maintenance check on the tags (e.g. verification; Column 7, Lines 25-68; Column 8, Lines 1-10) and adjusting the scan parameter (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-).
Regarding Claim 13, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising receiving updated scanner data and generating an updated performance metric (Column 27, Lines 40-50; Column 29, Lines 18-50; Figure 16).
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising: receiving from the scanner updated deep scan data associated with an updated deep scan of a plurality of data tags, the updated deep scan occurring after adjusting OR transmitting (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 14, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising adjusting scan parameter based on the updated performance metric OR transmitting the updated performance metric (Column 27, Lines 40-50; Column 29, Lines 18-50; Figure 16).
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising: teaches updated deep scan data (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 15, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further requesting ONE or more of a barcode scan (Column 9, Lines 44-68) or key access to medication station (Column 25, Lines 30-45; Figure 22) OR witness to view a user accessing the station.
Regarding Claim 22, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein plurality of data tags are each coupled to a medication stored within the medication station (Column 1, Lines 40-68; Column 9, Lines 44-68; Column 25, Lines 5-25; Figure 15, Elements 356, 362).
Claims 3, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 in view of Forster U.S. Patent No. 12525107 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Jain et al., U.S. Patent No. 9076119.
Regarding Claim 3, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan parameter is limited to ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval as claimed.
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Jian et al., from the same field of inventory management/adjusting scanning parameters, discloses a system and method comprising adjusting scanning parameters wherein the scan parameters are ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 42-57; Column 13, Lines 20-68; Column 16, Lines 38-57).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from adjusting scanning parameters wherein the scan parameters are ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval in view of the disclosure of Jian et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Carson et al. does not disclose a prior performance metric or baseline as claimed.
Jain et al., from the same field of endeavor of medication inventory management, discloses a system and method comprising:
Comparing the performance metric to a prior performance metric OR baseline performance metric (e.g. threshold; Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19); and
Determining the performance metric does not correspond to the prior performance metric OR baseline performance metric (e.g. threshold; Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19).
Regarding Claim 12, Carson et al. does not disclose determining the performance metric fails a threshold as claimed.
Jain et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method further comprising determining the performance metric fails a threshold metric (Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 in view of Forster U.S. Patent No. 12525107 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Hoffman et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170316373.
Regarding Claim 9, Carson et al. does not disclose generating a prediction as claimed.
Hoffman et al., from the same field of endeavor of inventory management, discloses a system and method further comprising generating based on the determination a predication of a failure of at least one data tag of the plurality of data tags; and wherein the indication comprises the prediction (Abstract; Paragraphs 10, 11, 28, 34; Figure 2, Element 206).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from predicting a failure in view of the disclosure of Hoffman et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Carson et al. does not disclose detecting/logging an unauthorized tag as claimed.
Hoffman et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless tag scanning, discloses a system and method further comprising detecting and logging based on a determination use of an unauthorized tag (Paragraphs 48, 74; Claim 7).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 in view of Forster U.S. Patent No. 12525107 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Onderko et al., U.S. Patent No. 7623036.
Regarding Claim 20, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags as claimed.
Onderko et al., from the same field of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method for adaptively/dynamically adjusting scanning parameters in a wireless scanning system comprising scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags in view of the disclosure of Onderko et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 in view of Forster U.S. Patent No. 12525107 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ouyang et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140266615.
Regarding Claim 24, Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
While benchmarking/comparing performance metrics is old and very well-known, Carson et al. does not comparing first/second station performance metrics as claimed.
Ouyang et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method comprising associating the performance metric with a first station, comparing the performance metric of the first station to the performance metric of a second station and displaying information representing the presentation (Abstract; Paragraphs 13, 44, 46; Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from comparing performance metrics in view of the disclosure of Ouyang et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 in view of Forster U.S. Patent No. 12525107 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of McDaniel et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100134260.
Regarding Claim 25, Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
While benchmarking/comparing performance metrics is old and very well-known, Carson et al. does not comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison as claimed.
McDaniel et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method comprising associating the performance metric with a first facility and comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison (Paragraphs 31, 36).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from comparing performance metrics in view of the disclosure of McDaniel et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MUKHOPADHYAYA, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200026893, discloses a system and method for managing a plurality of data tags including determining/classifying a data tag/RFID signal strength (strong) and adjusting a scan parameter in response to a threshold (e.g. quality of scan increase Paragraphs 32, 101; Claim 7; signal strength threshold Claim 7, Paragraph 101).
Stern, U.S. Patent No. 8519848 discloses an inventory management system and method including adjusting scanner operational parameters (e.g. polling/reading timing, frequency) based on tag performance compared to a threshold (DETX 53, 109, 111, Claim 13)
Romaine et al., U.S. Patent No. 8581722 discloses a system and method for adjusting scanner scan parameters based on a classified/profiled scanner performance metric (e.g. measures strength of read RFID signal, creates a RFID real problem; Abstract, Claim 1, DETX 16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights