DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to claims filed on 7/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “a processing pharmacy computing device at a second location and comprising: a display configured to provide a graphical user interface at the second location”. This limitation is presented like an apparatus claim element in a method claim without any functional step being recited (i.e., verb+ing). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and a system or device (i.e., apparatus/machine); therefore, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating work request assignments and processing by generating, at a source pharmacy at a first location, a file for a prescription medication for a prescription of a patient; storing, the file; and generating, by the source pharmacy, a shared work request for a prescription verification task for the prescription and indicating the file as a protected data resource at the first location; receiving, by a processing pharmacy at a second location, an assigned work request for the prescription verification task indicating the file as a protected data resource at the first location; requesting, by the processing pharmacy from the source pharmacy, access to the file; receiving, by the processing pharmacy from the source pharmacy, the file; displaying the image from the file for verification of the prescription; and processing, by the processing pharmacy in response to input received at the second location, the assigned work request based on the displayed [file]; and sending, by the processing pharmacy in response to processing the assigned work request, a work disposition for verification of the prescription; which include abstract idea of mental processes (observing and evaluating work request and prescription data and making judgement/opinion on processing and facilitating work request); and certain methods of organizing human activities based on fundamental economic practice (managing verification and fulfillment of prescription orders); and commercial and legal interactions (managing/facilitating work requests (such as prescription order to a pharmacy) – sales behavior, business relations) and based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following instructions/rules to assign, facilitate, process work request). Claims 2-10 and 12-19 provides further details to the abstract idea of claim 1 and 11; therefore, these claims include mental processes and organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 1 and 11. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a source pharmacy computing device at a first location; a first data storage device; a first memory; and a first processor; a processing pharmacy computing device at a second location; a display configured to provide a graphical user interface at the second location; a second memory; and a second processor; a verification interface on the graphical user interface; an enterprise computing device comprising: a network connection to the source pharmacy computing device and the processing pharmacy computing device; a third memory; and a third processor; automatically (by a computer); image file, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis per the most recent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a source pharmacy computing device at a first location; a first data storage device; a first memory; and a first processor; a processing pharmacy computing device at a second location; a display configured to provide a graphical user interface at the second location; a second memory; and a second processor; a verification interface on the graphical user interface; an enterprise computing device comprising: a network connection to the source pharmacy computing device and the processing pharmacy computing device; a third memory; and a third processor; automatically (by a computer); image file, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Claims are not rejected with prior art. Closest prior art to the claimed invention includes:
Berkelhamer et al (US 20110307270 A1), regarding “An information system and method that provides the ability to reroute portions of prescription order work between a plurality of organizational units in order to leverage capacity, expertise, or other resources to increase network efficiency”
Charron (WO 02/15095 A1), regarding “An electronic system (100) for prescribing medical items. The system (100) includes a validation mechanism which subjects certain items to verification criteria which include legal criteria, and precludes a prescription from being communicated to a dispenser unless such criteria have been fulfilled.” Also see Figs. 3-31, interfaces/tabs/screens within the Prescription/Pharmacy software that can be used for verification (processing pharmacy) and further actions (other pharmacies such as source pharmacy)
Kusakabe (US 20070136376 A1), regarding “para. 0071, In step S506, the image forming apparatus 104 receives the current waiting time from each of the pharmacies to which the waiting time inquiry signal was sent. In step S507, the display unit 209 displays a list of all the pharmacies that provided a current waiting time, the waiting times, the business hours, map/direction information, and detail information as illustrated in FIG. 10. If the detail information of each pharmacy displayed in step S507 is specified, the display unit 209 displays the waiting number, the dispensing status, and the expected waiting time associated with each respective prescription currently being handled by the specified pharmacy as illustrated in FIG. 11.”
Simmons (US 20140278466 A1), regarding “pharmacy workflow”
Kharraz Tavakol (US 20150154528 A1), regarding “para. 0049, In one embodiment, the task management module is configured to reassign the task to one or more other users if no response is received from the initially assigned user within a predetermined response time assigned to the task, or if the task remains uncompleted after a predetermined completion time assigned to the task.”
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention wherein the novelty is in the combination of all limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights